Mr Binu Raveendran v Chicken Cabins Ltd and 1 other — 2022

The claimant worked for Chicken Cabins Ltd as a restaurant general manager. The tribunal found that earlier disagreements about his move to and from Colton Mill did not show race discrimination, and it rejected the allegation that Mr Smith had treated the claimant or other staff differently because of race. It also found that the Liverpool conference incident was not a case of white staff being segregated from non-white staff: people chose to spend time with different groups after the football match, and there was no evidence that Mr Smith divided people up on racial lines.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Smith had raised concerns about the claimant's progression, but found that any reference to "cultural" issues related to work culture, meetings, and performance concerns rather than the claimant's race. It also found that the claimant's grievance complaint of 12 November 2022 did not prove victimisation: when performance issues were raised in the grievance process, they were raised because Mr Smith was answering questions in that process and genuinely held those concerns, not because the claimant had made a protected act.

On 9 and 10 November 2022 the claimant brought cooking equipment, gas bottles, a stove, and food ingredients into the Harehills restaurant for a charity curry night. The ROCC audit failed and the claimant was suspended pending investigation, then given a final written warning for breach of health and safety and food safety rules. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief that the claimant had committed misconduct, that the investigation and disciplinary outcome were not because of race, and that the disciplinary sanction was a reasonable response in the circumstances.

The claimant resigned on 16 December 2022 after receiving the grievance outcome and disciplinary warning, but the tribunal held there had been no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and therefore no constructive dismissal. It also found that the claimant had been provided with written terms of employment and changes to them. As none of the claims succeeded, no monetary award was made.