in person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant worked for Sainsbury's as a 4S Deputy Manager from 3 January 2006. In the 2018 Retail Management Structure Review the 4S Deputy Manager grade was abolished and new 3S and 4S Customer and Trading Manager roles were created. After consultation the claimant applied for the new roles, scored 25 in the single interview for the 3S and 4S CTM roles, and was offered a 3S CTM trial at Queensway North. He also applied unsuccessfully for other vacancies, including a finance role and a 5S convenience store manager role.

The tribunal dismissed the age and race discrimination claims, including the direct and indirect allegations. It held that several earlier allegations and the harassment allegations were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On the merits, it found no evidence that the challenged promotion, pay, redundancy or interview decisions were because of age or race, and it rejected the contention that the restructuring and contract terms created a PCP disadvantaging the 46 to 55 age group. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanations for the unsuccessful applications and noted that the highest-scoring candidate for the Southwark 5S role was a 47-year-old man of Asian Indian origin.

The harassment claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that most of the alleged conduct by Mr Ahmed Ali was not proved, and that the two admitted matters, a suggestion that the claimant join a WhatsApp group and the removal of one chair from the office, did not amount to harassment. It also found that the conduct was not unwanted conduct related to age or race and that the claimant's later wish to work with Mr Ali was inconsistent with the allegation.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because redundancy was the principal reason for dismissal, the tribunal considered the dismissal process fair, and the respondent complied with the ACAS Code of Practice. On the contract and wage issues, the tribunal found that the claimant had been told that leaving during his notice period would forfeit any payment in lieu of notice. It rejected the interview-time and pay-increase complaints, but held that scheduling him for 42 hours per week when his contract provided for 39 hours was a breach of contract and awarded £78.92 gross for the extra six hours. No separate injury-to-feelings or dismissal compensation was awarded.