Mr Hailston (Lay Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, Mr Coleman, was a black warehouse team manager who was dismissed on 26 July 2021 after allegations that he had shown favouritism towards Ms Szabo by keying delays, changing late records, and moving her onto bank holiday premium shifts. The tribunal found that the investigation carried out by Mr D Berkshire was reasonably thorough, clear and fair, and that there was no evidence that he acted with racial bias. It also found that the respondent’s managers genuinely believed misconduct had occurred and had reasonable grounds for that belief.

On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination provisions and the approach in Ladele. It concluded that there was not even prima facie evidence that race played a role in bringing the disciplinary proceedings or in the dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant had largely accepted the factual basis of the allegations, and that he did not raise race discrimination until the second appeal hearing, which it regarded as late and lacking authenticity. It therefore dismissed the discrimination claim.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct. It found that the disciplinary investigation was largely reasonable, and that the alleged conduct was serious and was not adequately explained by the claimant. However, it held that the procedure was unfair because Mr Maloney, who had initially investigated the matter and formed adverse views, should not have chaired the disciplinary hearing, contrary to the respondent’s impartiality requirement. The tribunal also found that the decision to dismiss had been predetermined before the final disciplinary meeting, and that the appeal process failed properly to engage with the claimant’s race discrimination allegation.

Even so, the tribunal decided that, had the process been fair, dismissal would have fallen within the band of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore upheld on procedural fairness grounds only. The tribunal did not determine remedy, contributory fault, or Polkey reduction at this stage, and directed that those matters would be dealt with at a remedy hearing if necessary.