Mr E Androne-Alexandru v First Greater Western Limited — 2019

The tribunal considered complaints of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation and detriment for making protected disclosures arising from the claimant's treatment at Paddington Station, his grievance process, and his temporary redeployment to Maidenhead. It found that the claimant had repeatedly taken extended unauthorised absences from the gateline during peak periods and had repeatedly refused to complete Please Explain forms, and that these matters explained the interventions by supervisors and managers in March and April 2018.

The direct race discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had advanced the race case on the basis of Romanian-Jewish ethnicity and race, but the relevant supervisors and duty station managers knew he was Romanian and did not know he was Jewish. It held that this was fatal to the claim as pleaded. In any event, it found the respondent had cogent non-racial explanations for the treatment complained of, namely the claimant's unauthorised absences and refusal to comply with management instructions.

Most of the victimisation allegations were also dismissed. The tribunal found, among other things, that delays in the grievance process, the abandoned grievance meeting on 5 November 2018, the temporary move to Maidenhead, the lack of overtime there, and decisions made by Mr Lanchester, Mr Cliff and Mr Crome were explained by operational, welfare or procedural reasons rather than by the claimant's protected acts. It accepted that the initial redeployment to Maidenhead and its continuation during the stage 1 grievance investigation were welfare-based steps intended to support a return to work while the grievance remained unresolved.

The tribunal upheld victimisation only in part, in relation to the continuation of the claimant's redeployment after the stage 1 grievance concluded on 28 August 2019. It found there was no cogent explanation for the claimant's continued exclusion from Paddington after that point, noting the absence of local management, HR and occupational health review for a prolonged period, the delay in obtaining updated occupational health advice, and Mr Haynes's reference to ongoing grievance and tribunal proceedings. The protected disclosure detriment claims were dismissed because the material relied on in paragraphs 73 and 74 of the formal complaint lacked sufficient specificity to amount to protected disclosures and was understood as supporting allegations of inconsistent treatment rather than reporting legally relevant wrongdoing.