Mr G Oluokun v Integral UK Ltd — 2022

At the final hearing in Central London on 26-29 September 2023 before Employment Judge Adkin with Ms H Ewing and Mr T Harrington-Roberts, the tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant had started as an agency electrical engineer in July 2021 and was offered a permanent role on 30 December 2021, but Mr Allen paused the process after Mr Nhari raised competence concerns; the EST1 assessment on 10 February 2022 produced about 30%. The tribunal accepted Mr Allen's evidence that he relied on those concerns and the later events when inviting the probationary review and dismissing the claimant.

On the race and age claims, the tribunal found no direct discrimination or harassment in the invitations to meetings, the dismissal, the non-progressed appeal, or the ACAS correspondence. It found no evidence that the decision-makers treated the claimant less favourably because of race or age, and no conduct was shown to relate to either characteristic. The appeal was not progressed because it had been misfiled by HR, and the ACAS email problem stemmed from the wrong address being used rather than discriminatory treatment.

On disability, a preliminary hearing had found a right-eye impairment amounting to disability, but the tribunal noted that the claimant had disclosed only shortsightedness on the health questionnaire and that there was no evidence the respondent knew of tear film insufficiency. Direct disability discrimination and disability harassment therefore failed. The reasonable-adjustments, indirect-disability, and section 15 claims also failed: the tribunal accepted that holding a probation meeting while someone was signed off could be a PCP, but found no substantial disadvantage by reason of the eye condition, no knowledge of that condition, and that the absence arose from stress and anxiety rather than the eye disability.

The annual leave claim failed because the claimant had worked about three months, was entitled to seven days' leave, and the final payslip showed £876.92 for holiday pay, which together with the Easter bank holidays meant he had been paid at least to entitlement. The overtime claim also failed because the contract required written authorisation and there was no evidence of the overtime alleged. No monetary award was made.