Mr Irvin Blake v The Color Company (TM) Limited — 2020

The claimant, Mr Irvin Blake, was dismissed on 23 July 2017 after two disciplinary episodes. The first concerned a Christmas party incident on 29 January 2016 at the Cavendish Hotel, where CCTV showed an altercation between Mr Blake and David Payne. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s allegation that the footage had been tampered with and found that the video showed Mr Payne pouring drink over Mr Blake, Mr Blake pushing Mr Payne away, Mr Blake throwing a glass towards Mr Payne, and then both men exchanging blows. The claimant was later diagnosed with a minor head injury.

The claimant did not raise a grievance about the party incident until November 2016. The grievance was investigated by Zoe Greatorex and then decided by Julie Rushton-Summers. The tribunal held that some aspects of the process were unfair, including the fact that Mr Payne was present when the CCTV was viewed at the police station and that Ms Rushton-Summers and Greig Fairclough dealt with both the grievance and the later disciplinary appeal. However, it found that these procedural defects were not caused by race or age, and it accepted the respondent’s explanation that the CCTV was treated as the most reliable evidence. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant told the grievance meeting there was “no evidence” of colour discrimination.

On the merits of the party incident, the respondent issued a final written warning on 13 April 2017, finding that Mr Blake had committed the first violent act and that both men were guilty of serious misconduct. The tribunal held that the final written warning was not manifestly inappropriate within the meaning of the authorities it applied, including Davies v Sandwell MBC, because the respondent had a reasonable basis in the CCTV evidence and the claimant’s conduct was serious enough to justify that sanction. The appeal against the warning was rejected.

A second disciplinary matter arose from a complaint by Ms Sawicka in March 2017 that Mr Blake had refused to follow instructions and had sworn at her. The tribunal accepted Ms Sawicka’s and Mr Pearlman’s accounts in the main respects relied on by the respondent, including that the claimant used aggressive swearing and was insubordinate. After the disciplinary hearing on 19 June 2017, Ms Rushton-Summers decided to dismiss him on notice for aggressive behaviour and swearing directly at a supervisor. The tribunal held that the investigation and appeal, taken together, were reasonable and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The race and age discrimination claims therefore failed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant’s race or age played any part in the respondent’s treatment of him, either in relation to the final written warning, the grievance and disciplinary procedures, or the dismissal. It also noted that some of the claimant’s complaints about unequal treatment were explained by materially different circumstances, and that the respondent’s failure to treat the grievance and discipline with different decision-makers was unfair in procedure but not discriminatory. Because the dismissal claim also failed, no remedy was awarded.