In person For the v Ms P Hall, Litigation Executive — 2021

Mr Lewis started work in August 2016 and, after the January 2017 accident, the tribunal accepted that he became disabled by reason of his back injury and mental health impairments. It found that the respondent supported him with loans totalling £400, paid for chiropractic treatment, arranged light duties, weekly well-being meetings, training, and assistance with his visa. The tribunal accepted that he told Mr Dack he thought Mr Rustell was removing materials from site, but held that this was not a protected disclosure in the public interest and that Mr Lewis gave no evidence of a reasonable belief that it was in the public interest. The whistleblowing detriment claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A were therefore dismissed.

The race discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the dismissal followed admitted misconduct and health and safety breaches, including riding wheelies on site, falling asleep or nodding off while on banksman duties, and taking medication that could make him drowsy. It rejected the allegations that grievances were handled without professionalism, that confidential loan information had been disclosed, that Mr Rustell baited or goaded the claimant, or that the suspension in January 2018 was caused by his Home Office letter request. On that basis, the tribunal found no facts from which direct race discrimination, race harassment, or race victimisation could be inferred, and it noted that the earlier allegations would in any event have been out of time.

The disability claims were also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew Mr Lewis was disabled, but found that the alleged unfavourable treatment for discrimination arising from disability was not made out: it rejected the complaints about withheld training, grievance handling, mockery, and back-straining duties. It also dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim because the alleged PCP requiring him to do more than light duties did not exist on his own evidence. The tribunal found no protected act for the victimisation claim. Finally, the breach of contract notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found gross misconduct and held that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss without notice. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.