In Person For v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, Mr Ake Achi, identified himself as Black African and brought race discrimination proceedings against GMB and others, together with a later claim for unfair/constructive dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal dismissed the claims against respondents 3 to 5 after withdrawal. It also held that the race discrimination allegations against the first and second respondents were either out of time or, in any event, not made out on the facts. The tribunal found there was no basis to conclude that the various management decisions complained of were taken because of race.

On the evidence, the tribunal preferred the respondents' witnesses and found that Mr Richards and Ms Gearing had acted supportively. It rejected the claimant's case that his work review amounted to a failure, found that the move from the S20 Security Branch to the Organising Team was a reallocation of duties rather than a demotion, and held that the shared computer issue was consistent with how junior staff, including white comparators, had been treated. The tribunal also found that the lateness warning in February 2017 was justified by the claimant's repeated lateness, that the refusals of leave on 20 and 28 February 2017 were explained by diary constraints and lack of cover, and that the appeal decision in March 2017 was legitimate.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance of 11 April 2017 was a protected act for victimisation purposes, but held that the later steps complained of were not taken because of that grievance. It found that Mr Morgan's inquiry into apparent work for another organisation while the claimant was off sick was a reasonable employer response, that the decision to move the grievance to stage 2 when it was directed against the Regional Secretary reflected the respondent's ordinary practice, and that the referral of the grievance allegations for disciplinary consideration followed the view that they appeared spurious, vexatious or malicious rather than any protected act.

The constructive dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that there had been no repudiatory breach of contract in the period leading up to resignation, and that the failure to pay the claimant's sick pay on 6 March 2018 was an honest payroll error rather than conduct evincing an intention not to be bound by the contract. It further found that the claimant had already decided to resign before that underpayment and was not resigning in response to it. The only monetary award made was for unlawful deduction from wages: contractual sick pay for 1 to 13 March 2018 in the sum of £1,020.50 net.