A dispute between two rival Marks & Spencer bra fitters has reached an employment tribunal after one accused the other of racial discrimination.
Elif Archbold, 56, brought a claim against the high street retailer, saying she had been bullied by fellow bra fitter Lesley Payne.
The tribunal heard that Ms Payne, the longest-serving bra fitter at the branch with 20 years’ experience, could be “quite abrupt and rude” and “dismissive” towards Mrs Archbold.
Ms Payne was said to have criticised her colleague’s work and discussed her with other staff. Mrs Archbold, who is Turkish, also claimed that Ms Payne repeatedly asked her to repeat herself, saying she could not understand her.
Mrs Archbold said the behaviour felt like “racial bullying and discrimination” because she was the only non-British person working on the shop floor.
The tribunal also heard that Ms Payne appeared to object to Mrs Archbold’s flexible working arrangement, under which she worked during term time only until her daughter turned 18.
The two women did not speak to each other at all for six months before the tribunal hearing.
However, an employment judge at Dundee Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that the conflict was not racially motivated.
Instead, he concluded that it arose from a “dysfunctional workplace relationship” marked by interpersonal conflict, mutual distrust and misunderstandings.
Elif Archbold, 56, brought a claim against M&S after alleging she had been bullied by fellow bra fitter Lesley Payne
The tribunal heard that the lingerie department at M&S’s Stirling branch was “not an easy place to work in” and that conditions had progressively deteriorated
Mrs Archbold began working as a customer assistant at the retailer’s Stirling store in 2008. She worked predominantly in the lingerie department, carrying out specialist bra-fitting duties.
Her working arrangement included eight weeks off during the summer school holidays, along with one week off in February and another in October.
Ms Payne was also a customer assistant, trained bra fitter and stock controller. She was the longest-serving bra fitter in the Stirling store’s lingerie department.
Both women were specialist retail colleagues who helped M&S customers find bras offering the correct fit, comfort, support and style.
But the tribunal heard that relationships among staff in the lingerie department had become strained. During the six months before the hearing, Mrs Archbold and Ms Payne did not communicate with each other.
Before that period, Ms Payne was described as being “quite abrupt and rude” towards Mrs Archbold, dismissing her and generally using an unpleasant tone when speaking to her.
The lingerie department was described to the tribunal as “not an easy place to work in”, with conditions having “got worse progressively”.
The difficult relationship between the two women was known to colleagues and team managers.
In November 2023, the pair had a “relatively heated, verbal confrontation” after Ms Payne mistakenly believed that Mrs Archbold had asked for additional hours.
Mrs Archbold had been asked to begin work at 6am. Ms Payne objected, telling her that if she wanted to work those hours, she should work in the food department.
CONTINUE READING: Repeat Offender Accused of Killing Wife at Family Home Months After Domestic Violence Charge
Mrs Archbold requested mediation to help them continue working together, but it failed to resolve the dispute. During the session, Ms Payne reportedly told her that she had “no right to start at 6am” and that Marks & Spencer “cannot provide hours to suit your family and lifestyle”.
A further disagreement arose in March 2024 over break times. A colleague reported that Mrs Archbold had “erupted” at Ms Payne in front of a customer.
Mrs Archbold was subsequently moved to the footwear department, while Ms Payne returned to lingerie.
Mrs Archbold said the transfer left her feeling “humiliated” and as though she was being “punished”. She believed management had chosen to accept Ms Payne’s account over her own.
The tribunal heard that in March 2025, while rostered to work as a bra fitter in the lingerie department, Mrs Archbold helped a customer with particular needs during a fitting appointment scheduled for 1pm.
It later emerged that the customer had booked the appointment with Ms Payne, who was “familiar with her background”.
After the appointment, Ms Payne approached Mrs Archbold and accused her of “stealing” the customer booking.
The incident led Mrs Archbold to submit a formal written complaint to management.
In her letter to the store manager, she accused Ms Payne of subjecting her to “regular oppressive behaviour” over “many years”.
A manager from another store was appointed to investigate the allegations. In June 2025, he concluded that no further action should be taken.
He recommended that Ms Payne and Mrs Archbold complete inclusion and diversity training and work in separate departments in future.
Mrs Archbold said her relationship with management continued to deteriorate. She therefore brought a claim against M&S at an employment tribunal, alleging direct race discrimination.
Employment Judge Robert Phillips rejected the claim, saying the disagreement had an “obvious and entirely non-discriminatory explanation”.
He said the customer had requested an appointment with Ms Payne, but Mrs Archbold did not know that and proceeded with the bra fitting.
Ms Payne believed that a customer who had specifically asked to see her had instead been assisted by another bra fitter. The judge said the question was not whether Ms Payne was justified in accusing Mrs Archbold of “stealing” the appointment, but why she had reacted in that way.
Judge Phillips concluded that Ms Payne’s response was based on her understanding of what had happened to the customer booking, rather than on Mrs Archbold’s Turkish nationality or ethnic origin.
“The Tribunal found no evidence of racial language, racial stereotyping, references to nationality or ethnicity, or any other facts capable of linking Ms Payne’s conduct to [Mrs Archbold’s] protected characteristic,” he said.
In reaching his decision, Judge Phillips said the issue was not whether Mrs Archbold had been treated unfairly, criticised, excluded, upset or treated poorly by particular line managers. The central question was whether she had been treated that way because of her race.
He found no evidence of racial language, stereotyping or assumptions connected to her Turkish nationality or ethnic origin.
“Instead, the evidence pointed to a dysfunctional workplace relationship characterised by interpersonal conflict, which led to mutual distrust and misunderstandings,” he said.
“The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that those matters, rather than race, explain the treatment complained of. Considering the allegations both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal concludes that the claimant was not treated less favourably because she was Turkish or of Turkish ethnic origin.”
