IN PERSON, ASSISTED BY MR KHAN AND MR ADDISON FOR THE v Mr Peacock (solicitor) — 2019

The claimant worked for Royal Mail at Cardiff Mail Centre from 1 August 2007 until his dismissal on 23 January 2018. This judgment determined liability only; the tribunal said directions would follow for a separate remedy hearing, so no compensation was fixed in this decision.

The whistleblowing claims failed. The tribunal found the alleged protected disclosures were too vague because the communications relied on were not identified with enough precision, and there was no evidence explaining why any disclosure was made in the public interest. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s100(1)(e) ERA 1996 also failed: although the claimant was genuinely concerned about the ground-floor disabled toilet provision, by late 2017 the tribunal found there were not circumstances of danger that he reasonably believed to be serious or imminent, and his staying away from work was not an appropriate step to protect anyone from that danger.

The victimisation claim succeeded. The tribunal held that the letters from January 2014, the September 2015 letter co-authored for Z, and the 7 August 2017 letter were not protected acts, but the 14 September 2017 grievance was. It found that Mr Colclough's letters of 15 and 20 December 2017 threatening to stop contractual sick pay, the actual stoppage of contractual sick pay on 28 December 2017, and the dismissal decision of 23 January 2018 were all significantly influenced by that grievance.

On race harassment, the tribunal upheld the claim only in relation to Mr Brown's 'sly dog' comment at the 21 June 2017 meeting. It found the remark had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating a humiliating and offensive environment, and it extended time on a just and equitable basis. The remaining race-harassment allegations, including Mr Day's 'I am not going to kill you' comment, Mr Newton's 'ape shit' remark, the handling of the grievance, and the sick pay decision, were rejected as not race-related.

The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the challenged remarks and conduct were driven by workplace conflict and poor relationships rather than race. The direct religious discrimination claim succeeded: on 3 August 2017 Mr Day aggressively referred to 'the Muslim Prayer Room', and the tribunal found this was less favourable treatment because of the claimant's perceived religion. The disability-by-association and sex-by-association claims were dismissed because the tribunal found no less favourable treatment linked to Z's disability or sex, and no connection between those protected characteristics and the relevant management decisions.