Mr D Ali v Mitie Limited — 2022

The Claimant was employed as a security officer and resigned after a grievance and grievance appeal concerning, among other matters, overtime, annual leave, a December 2019 incident involving an intoxicated intruder, and comments made during a subsequent training discussion. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had benign prostatic hyperplasia and was disabled at the material time, but accepted that the Respondent did not have relevant knowledge of that disability for the disputed matters.

The Tribunal found that CCTV footage from the intruder incident was shown to a day-shift group as part of a training discussion and that religion and health were raised as possible factors in the Claimant stepping back. It found this was unwanted from the Claimant's perspective, and that raising religion and health in a group discussion in his absence was unfortunate and a misjudgement, but did not find direct discrimination, disability-related harassment, religion-related harassment, or discrimination arising from disability. The Tribunal found the reference to religion was, in context, at worst an unfortunate phrase and not sufficient for legal liability.

On constructive dismissal, the Tribunal identified shortcomings in the handling of the grievance process, including the non-retention of interview notes and a failure to respond immediately to the Claimant's request to move site. It nevertheless found that the matters, viewed cumulatively, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The Tribunal also dismissed the victimisation claim, accepting that the refusal of one day's leave was not because of protected acts, and dismissed the wrongful dismissal and redundancy payment claims.