In Person For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant brought a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010 arising from a series of alleged detriments between January 2017 and February 2019. The tribunal recorded that he relied on protected acts beginning with his email of 9 January 2017, in which he said he had a disability, anxiety and depression and complained of bullying and harassment by his previous manager. It also recorded that he later made further protected acts, including complaints and grievances during 2017 and 2018.

The tribunal found that the respondent's actions were explained by ordinary management reasons rather than the protected acts. It accepted evidence that concerns about leave and flexitime records arose because the claimant had not accurately recorded his timekeeping, that performance concerns were genuine, and that the move to formal performance management followed those concerns. It also accepted that decisions about funding for posts, the claimant remaining in the division, the handling of conduct complaints, the request for a fit note, and the refusal of ad hoc homeworking were driven by staffing, performance, attendance and support considerations.

The tribunal similarly rejected the grievance-related allegations and the later attendance-management allegations. It found that the grievance scope decisions, the investigation steps, the refusal to revisit earlier attendance decisions, the final attendance warning, and the later handling of the grievance appeal and attendance appeal were all taken for reasoned, non-victimisation reasons. It accepted that one flexitime allegation concerning return to work had been withdrawn.

In summary, the tribunal held that the respondent did not victimise the claimant and that victimisation was not part of the reason for any of the impugned treatment. No compensation or other remedy was awarded.