Mr T Megone, Trade Union Representative For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia, with effects including difficulty with reading, writing, short-term memory and task management, and a stammer. It also found that the first respondent had known of the disability since around 2014 and had made reasonable adjustments, including providing a mobile telephone for time and task management. The tribunal accepted that Mr Price said on 30 October 2018 that the claimant's wife must have done a good job writing his competencies, and that in early November 2018 he told the claimant that if his phone rang again he would take it away; it also found that the claimant intervened in the 13 February 2019 dispute involving Ms Charles and Mr Arampoorthy, after which an investigation was commenced.

The first claim, 2202459/2019, was dismissed in full. The tribunal held that the competencies comment was not related to race or disability and did not amount to harassment, and that the phone comment was made out of frustration because the phone was disturbing other staff. Even if the phone incident arose from something connected to disability, the tribunal found that the respondent's response would have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of limiting disruption in an open-plan office environment. The tribunal also rejected the direct race allegation, the direct disability allegation, the section 15 claim, and the victimisation claim, and it did not accept the claimant's case that the alleged WhatsApp comment attributed to Mr Price had been made.

On victimisation in the first claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had not made the protected acts relied on for 30 October 2018 or 7 November 2018. It found that the claimant had complained about lack of promotion and development for long-standing junior staff, not minority staff, and that his email referred to conscious bias in a general way without making an allegation of a contravention of the Equality Act. The tribunal further found that the handling of the 13 February 2019 incident, including the investigation and requests for apology, was not because of any protected act.

The second claim, 2205599/2020, was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's first ET claim was a protected act, but found that the later complaints about appraisal markings, rota access, email communications, the supplier correspondence and the courier request were not detriments caused by that protected act. It found that the relationship between the claimant and Mr Taylor was already strained and that communication problems pre-dated the second claim. The tribunal also held that time limits had been missed for earlier acts in both claims, refused to extend time as just and equitable, and awarded no remedy because all claims failed.