A nanny who was sacked after complaining her employer’s boyfriend had refused to quarantine following a trip to Paris has been awarded more than £38,000.
Janine O’Harris, 47, said French banker Nicolas Granatino dismissed her on the spot a day after she voiced her concerns about self-isolation rules.
She was awarded more than £38,000 by an employment tribunal after claiming unfair dismissal from her £35,500-a-year job in June last year.
The tribunal heard how Ms O’Harris had concerns about Covid exposure because she suffers from asthma and her partner has diabetes.
She raised this with her employer Domitille Rambaud, a store director at upmarket Italian fashion house Brunello Cucinelli, but a day later she was paid notice and asked to leave.
Ms O’Harris claims she was told Mr Granatino, the ex-husband of German multimillionaire heiress Katrin Radmacher, didn’t need to self-isolate because he ‘had antibodies.’
But after returning from Paris in June 2020, the employment tribunal accepted that he should have quarantined for 14 days in line with Covid rules.
Instead, he continued to attend work and ‘objected to polite questioning’ about his lack of self-isolation, it was alleged.
Janine O’Harris (above) was sacked after complaining her employer’s partner refused to quarantine following a trip to France
Ms O’Harris had concerns about Covid exposure because she suffers from asthma and her partner has diabetes, placing them both at higher risk from the virus. Pictured left: Her employer, Domitille Rambaud, and right: Nicolas Granatino
Speaking today, Ms O’Harris claimed her concerns about the virus were brushed aside after it was alleged Mr Granatino had ‘antibodies.’
‘But obviously this all happened last year when nobody knew whether people had the antibodies or not,’ she said.
‘I told them I think if you look at the health and safety regulations you’ll find you have to quarantine.’
She added that Mr Granatino had been flying home from Paris shortly after the Government announced quarantine rules for those returning from France.
‘I brought it up with Domitille again that morning and said “Look, I’ve seen the news he should be quarantining”,’ she said.
‘But she must have told him because he came back at lunch time and said you are dismissed you can leave now.’
Central London Employment Tribunal heard it was said Mr Granatino would look after the children following the dismissal, but the couple then hired another nanny.
Mr Granatino made case law when he challenged a pre-nup agreement following his divorce in 2006 from German socialiate Katrin Radmacher – who is thought to be worth more than £100m thanks to an inheritance from her family paper firm.
The hearing in 2010 ruled for the first time in a British court that a pre-nup signed in Germany was valid in England.
He had agreed to make no claim on her fortune but was awarded £1million and the use of a £2.5million home until their daughter was 22.
He went back to court and tried to claim that the pre-nup had no status in English law, but lost.
Mr Granatino is a former investment banker who brought in a salary of £300,000 per year, before he became an Oxford researcher.
Sitting in London, employment judge Tim Russell said Ms O’Harris claimed she had been ‘unfairly dismissed’ by her employers on June 10, 2020.
‘The Respondent’s partner, Mr Granatino, refused to self-isolate when returning from France in June 2020 against government guidelines at the time,’ he said.
‘He gave no substantive reasons beyond stating that he was protected by antibodies.
Ms O’Harris claims she was told Mr Granatino, the ex-husband of German heiress Katrin Radmacher, didn’t need to self-isolate because he ‘had antibodies.’ Pictured: Central London Employment Tribunal
‘He went to work as normal and objected to polite questioning by the Claimant as to his refusal to adhere to the rules.
‘He may have believed he had had Covid-19 and or had some other reasons to ignore the Government health guidelines but the Claimant was concerned as to her own health as an asthma sufferer and that of her own partner who has diabetes as an underlying condition as well as the Claimant’s mother whom she cared for.
‘She was genuinely and legitimately worried about her and her family’s health and safety as a consequence of the actions of the Respondent and her partner.
‘But having raised these concerns directly with her employer household she was, the very next day, dismissed.
‘There was no fair dismissal procedure, no conduct or capability issues were raised, formally or informally and no disciplinary hearing took place.
‘There was a complete absence of process. In this case the complete lack of any procedure and the timing of the dismissal and false reason simply confirms the real reason for the dismissal as well as the unfairness of it.
‘The Claimant was dismissed because she made her health and safety complaint.
‘But it was a concern she was quite entitled to have, a complaint that she was perfectly entitled to make and there is no suggestion that she made it in other than a thoughtful and reasonable way.’
Ms Rambaud claimed the dismissal was nothing to do with the nanny’s discussion about the quarantine period.
Instead, she claimed she had concluded that Ms O’Harris did not like her husband being at home observing her and that her relationship with the children was not as positive as it should be.
She also claimed that Ms O’Harris was inflexible in her work.
Ms O’Harris argued that following her dismissal due to the pandemic it was difficult to find alternative employment and she had been left without a reference.
She had worked for them for just over two years but had been with another family for eight years before that.
Ms O’Harris signed on with three agencies since being sacked and the tribunal lauded the fact she had not claimed benefit but was living on savings and her partner whilst she looked for work.
Making the award, Employment Judge Russell added: ‘Finally, although the vaccine roll out has begun it is legitimate to find that it may be another six months before she can get viable employment once more.
‘That this situation arises to the detriment of the Respondent is in a large part due to the unfairness of the dismissal in the first place.
‘In that the Respondent then inherits the problem job market on remedy just as the Claimant has faced it in practice.
‘No doubt exacerbated by the absence of a guaranteed favourable reference.’
They awarded her her annual salary of just over £35,000 plus a compensatory award totalling £38,292.65.