- IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, who self-described as black Caribbean, brought claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation arising from 33 scheduled allegations against Mitie Total Security Ltd. The tribunal identified Mr Kamil Ogrodny as the comparator and treated the claimant’s grievance of 8 December 2015 as the protected act relied on for victimisation. It also noted that many allegations were potentially out of time, but said it was unnecessary to resolve time points because the claims failed on the merits.

On the early complaints, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment or no evidential basis for an inference of discrimination in relation to the missed probation review, alleged emails to managers, rota changes and shift-swapping, CCTV training, being sent home from a shift, the grievance outcome, the reference request, the instruction not to review live CCTV without a licence, and a day’s holiday for a doctor’s appointment. Where the facts were established, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanations, including that both the claimant and Mr Ogrodny were treated in the same way on rota matters, and that the claimant was not disadvantaged by the absence of a probation review or by the referral of the reference request to HR.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the later complaints about the refusal of annual leave in 2017 and 2018, the alternate Sunday overtime issue, the work-environment complaint, grievance handling, the February 2017 disciplinary investigation, the March 2017 complaint-handling issues, the 2 May 2017 call, the Sainsbury’s consultation exercise, and the emails and scheduling issues following the deaths of the claimant’s sister and mother. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that it was seeking necessary information, applying internal procedures, or responding to customer-driven rota changes, and held that there was no causal link to race or to the protected act.

The remaining complaints, including the late payment of sick pay, the pay-query process, the removal of the podium chair, the 5 December 2018 store visit and allegations said to be malicious, and the April to May 2019 rota changes, were also dismissed. Standing back, the tribunal said it could not identify any pattern of discriminatory behaviour by Mr Dean or anyone else, and it therefore dismissed all allegations on their merits.