Case 2207604/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207604/2020
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr I McLaughlin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Skeete worked as a Security Officer at BBC Broadcasting House. From March 2020 there were repeated exchanges about face coverings, and on 2 June 2020 the respondent changed its policy so that staff could wear a plain, neutral mask if they wished. When the claimant raised a grievance on 30 June 2020, the tribunal found that he was no longer pursuing an ongoing health and safety concern and that the complaint was in substance about Mr Thomas's handling of the issue. It held that he did not genuinely believe the matters in that grievance email were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, so the s.100(1)(c) ERA complaint failed.
The dismissal followed the incident on 15 July 2020, when the claimant sought compensation after Mr Baquero checked a carrier bag at his desk. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Cray, Mr Baquero and Mr Thomas, and found that the claimant behaved aggressively and overbearingly during that exchange. It also accepted the grievance findings that the 30 June grievance had been brought maliciously and not in good faith. On that evidence, it found the dismissal was a reasonable response to the conduct and the grievance misuse, and not because the claimant had raised health and safety concerns.
The direct race claim failed because Ms Carr was not a valid comparator: although her bag had also been searched, she asked for an explanation, accepted it and moved on, whereas the claimant demanded compensation and continued the dispute. The tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Nelson's reference to the claimant as IC3 was racial profiling, finding it was ordinary security-industry terminology. The age claim failed because Mr Thomas's remark that the claimant was a 'young guy' was read as an attempt to see whether youth might explain the behaviour, not as a reason to treat him less favourably because of age. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the claimant was paid full pay throughout the suspension period from 15 July 2020 to 14 August 2020, so there was no shortfall in wages properly payable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim advanced under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant did not genuinely believe the 30 June 2020 grievance email raised harmful or potentially harmful health and safety circumstances, and that dismissal was for the 15 July 2020 conduct and the tribunal's view that the grievance had been raised maliciously, not because he raised health and safety concerns. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the comparison with Donna Carr because the circumstances were materially different: she sought an explanation and accepted it, whereas the claimant demanded compensation and continued the dispute. It also rejected the submission that Mr Nelson's reference to the claimant as IC3 was racial profiling. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found Mr Thomas's comment that the claimant was a 'young guy' was an attempt to look for an explanation for the claimant's behaviour and not treatment because of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was paid full pay during the suspension period from 15 July 2020 to 14 August 2020, so there was no unpaid sum properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele [2009] IRLR 154
- Part II ERA 1996 / wages properly payable
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.