in person For the first v Respondent — 2019

The claimant worked as a concierge at Macready House, employed by Glowhurst Ltd with Rendall & Rittner Ltd managing day-to-day matters. The tribunal recorded that there was a TUPE transfer in July 2019, that a number of resident complaints had been made about the claimant, and that no unfair dismissal claim was before it. It treated the case as a series of direct race discrimination allegations, including complaints about Mr Wade's handling of resident complaints, his communications with the claimant, and the dismissal process itself.

On the earlier incidents, the tribunal found that several of the pleaded matters did not identify any clear discriminatory act, and in some instances did not amount to an identifiable complaint at all. Where it made findings on the facts, it accepted the respondents' evidence that Mr Wade had passed on complaints, attended when asked, made proportionate enquiries about the contractor incident, and was not shown to have acted aggressively or because of race. It also accepted that some matters were resolved by ordinary management steps, and that the claimant was not reliable on the central factual disputes.

The tribunal found that the investigation and disciplinary process surrounding the July and September 2019 complaints was not shown to be race-based. It accepted the respondents' explanation that the complainant was kept anonymous to protect residents, and found that Mr Wade told the claimant who the complainant was before the disciplinary hearing, allowing him to respond. On the dismissal itself, the tribunal accepted Mr Reich's evidence that the decision was based on the number and nature of complaints, the claimant's prior warning, and the conclusion that his conduct was inappropriate and part of a wider pattern.

Applying the direct discrimination authorities it cited, including the burden of proof approach in section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the cases of Shamoon, Anya, Igen, Madarassy and Hewage, the tribunal held that no facts were proved from which race discrimination could properly be inferred, and in any event the respondents had given non-discriminatory explanations which it accepted. It therefore dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination.