Mr C Gill v Mr K Priddle, Mr M Sheen, Mr A Taylor, Mr N Thomas, Mr J Knight, Mr Z Rahman and Mr J Rogers (as Trustees of YMCA Port Talbot) — 2024

Mr C Gill was employed as Fitness/Gym Manager by YMCA Port Talbot from 20 February 2023 until his dismissal on 16 March 2023. His case concerned a series of interactions with Reception staff about the minimum age for gym use, class timetables, yoga instructors, social media posts, QR codes and induction bookings, together with a meeting around 9 March 2023 where management said he needed to change his approach to Reception. The tribunal found those matters arose in the context of a new building opening, with staff still establishing systems and dealing with customer queries, and not because of race.

On the pleaded acts of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, the tribunal did not find that the claimant had been treated less favourably or subjected to unwanted conduct because of race. It accepted evidence that the Reception team was trying to obtain information needed to run the plaza, avoid room clashes and answer customers, and it found the age-limit questioning reflected initial confusion about whether the gym was for adults only or 16-plus. The tribunal also accepted that the QR code issue was an administrative mistake, and that the 9 March meeting was an attempt by Mr Brown and Mr Bergamo to improve communication and get everyone working together, rather than a race-related threat or complaint.

The dismissal was analysed separately on burden of proof. The tribunal considered it fairest to treat the burden as shifted because the explanation given to the claimant was not fully consistent across the dismissal meeting and the later letter. Even so, it found that Mr Brown dismissed the claimant because of concerns raised by an NVQ training provider about the adequacy of the claimant's qualifications and the related insurance and risk position for the new gym, not because of race. The tribunal noted that the claimant's race was known at interview and that he was recruited in preference to others, which was inconsistent with a race-based dismissal only a few weeks later.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's oral comments on 16 March and his email of the same date referred to potential legal action for unfair dismissal, deliberate misfeasance and breach of contract, but did not amount to a protected act under the Equality Act 2010 and could not reasonably be read as a complaint of race discrimination. All claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.