Mr A Chaudhry v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Limited — 2019

Mr Chaudhry's claim 1810827/2018 alleged victimisation and harassment after earlier discrimination proceedings had settled. He complained about a period with no work between 11 and 31 May 2018, only 20 hours from 1 June 2018, a refusal to provide work while he was off sick, the conduct of a grievance meeting on 12 July 2018, a delay in the grievance outcome, and the rejection of the grievance. The tribunal found his contract provided for variable and flexible hours rather than any guaranteed minimum.

On the work-allocation complaints, the tribunal accepted Cerberus's evidence that several client contracts ended or moved at short notice in April and May 2018. It found there was no available work to offer Mr Chaudhry in mid-May 2018, that he could not be moved to some other work because he had been banned from one site and was not qualified for mobile patrol duties, and that the offer of 20 hours from 1 June 2018 reflected the work then available. Those decisions were found not to have been caused by his earlier protected acts.

On the sickness-related complaints, the tribunal found that Mr Chaudhry was certified unfit for work for the relevant periods when he asked about further shifts. It held that the failure to offer work while he was off sick was because there was no work available or because he was medically certified unfit, not because he had brought earlier proceedings. The five-day delay in the grievance outcome was attributed to Mr Stott's sickness absence, and the grievance itself was rejected because the tribunal found there was no substance to it.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Stott's conduct in the grievance meeting could be seen as unreasonable and bordering on aggressive, but it found that his reaction arose from Mr Chaudhry's refusal to accept the records and was not related to race or religion. Ms Train's intervention was found to be an attempt to explain the computer records, and Mr Hardcastle's remarks about finding work elsewhere were not treated as a detriment or as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic. Both the victimisation and harassment claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.