Case 2202294/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R R Cherian v SOF-10 Starlight 12 Operations Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202294/2019
- Decision date
- 26 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Mr G Bishop, Mr J Carroll
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R R Cherian
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Cherian was employed by the respondent as Hotel Manager at the Residence Inn London Kensington and that his contract from 1 August 2017 described that role. It did not accept that he had been promised the title of General Manager in May 2017. Although some communications referred to him as general manager, the tribunal found that this reflected his position as the most senior person in the hotel while a Cluster General Manager was in place, rather than a contractual promotion.
When Sam Farmer was appointed as General Manager in January 2019, the tribunal found that the appointment was made because of Mr Farmer's particular skills and experience and not because of Mr Cherian's race. It also held that the respondent's failure to run an open recruitment process, and its continued description of the claimant as Hotel Manager, did not amount to direct race discrimination. The tribunal further found that the June 2019 change to the claimant's job description, which added some Operations Manager duties after a wider reorganisation, was permitted by his contract and would have applied irrespective of race.
On victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaint at the 25 January 2019 meeting was not a protected act, but his grievance of 18 February 2019 was. Even so, it found that the alleged detriments either pre-dated the protected act, formed part of the grievance and appeal process, or were ordinary management decisions linked to the reorganisation. It also found that Sam Farmer was not aware of the race discrimination allegation at the relevant time.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found no express breach of contract and no repudiatory breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. It accepted that there had been some communication failures, but not ones going to the heart of the contract. Alternatively, it found that Mr Cherian affirmed the contract by continuing to work until his resignation in September 2019. The tribunal therefore dismissed all complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found there had been no promise in May 2017 to give the claimant the title of General Manager, that his role remained Hotel Manager, and that the appointment of Sam Farmer in January 2019 was due to Mr Farmer's skills and experience rather than race. It also found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the claimant's comment on 25 January 2019 was not a protected act, although the grievance of 18 February 2019 was. It found that the alleged detriments either pre-dated the protected act, were part of the grievance or appeal process, or arose from ordinary management and reorganisation, and that Sam Farmer was not aware of the race complaint at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found no express breach of contract and no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that, if there had been any breach, the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work before resigning on 12 September 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- repudiatory breach of contract
- implied duty of trust and confidence
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.