Mr G C Obiweluozo (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2019

Miss Onochie, who described herself as Black African and of Nigerian national origin, worked in the London Borough of Ealing's Housing Demand service. The tribunal rejected her account that she was subjected to overt race-based abuse by colleagues and found instead that the working relationship in the team deteriorated because the claimant was perceived as difficult to manage, resistant to direction, and unable to work collaboratively. It accepted that there was tension and distance between her and other team members, but did not find a racial divide or racial motivation behind that tension.

On the direct race discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal held that the main management decisions were taken for non-racial reasons. It found that Salwah Hutchinson's probation concerns were genuinely held and based on performance and conduct, that Thomas James dealt with the first grievance without racial motive, that Lynne Duvall's decision to suspend the claimant after the police arrest was a reasonable precaution, and that the later continuation of the internal investigation after the police took no further action was also reasonable. The tribunal rejected the claimant's later elaborations of incidents such as the alleged 'pig's face' remark and alleged Caribbean-language abuse, finding those allegations inconsistent with what she had said contemporaneously.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal held that several of the claimant's complaints did not amount to protected acts under the Equality Act 2010. It found that the first clear allegation of race discrimination was not made until 17 February 2018, and that later protected acts, including the 23 June 2018 disciplinary statement and the 19 November 2018 grievance, did not cause the alleged detriments. The tribunal also held that the grievance appeal and the handling of the probation extension did not support any inference of victimisation.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the only protected disclosure it identified was the claimant's 5 December 2017 email to Ms Anderson alleging that food from hoteliers was being accepted in circumstances that could amount to bribery or corruption, together with the repetition of that allegation in the June 2018 disciplinary process. It found that this disclosure was not known to the people said to have caused most of the alleged detriments, and that in any event the relevant decisions were explained by lawful and reasonable reasons. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not been paid £202.80 for mobile charges because of miscommunication and her failure to use the required expenses process, not because of any unlawful treatment.