Mr T Street, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s direct discrimination claims and unlawful deduction from wages claim were withdrawn. The only claims determined on the merits were the victimisation allegations added by amendment, based on complaints the claimant said she made on 9 January 2023, 24 January 2023 and in May 2023 about race discrimination.

The tribunal found that the January and May complaints were protected acts, but it rejected all six alleged detriments. It held that the 6 February 2023 audit observation by Ms Flora Chiu-Wah Tong was a routine and necessary inspection and not a detriment, and in any event Ms Tong had no knowledge of the protected acts. The allegation that Ms Ashelby procured a false account about missing training records was not proved. The tribunal accepted that manual 4 was missing from the claimant’s training file and rejected the suggestion that records had been deliberately removed.

As to the claimant’s removal from dispensing/clean room work in March 2023, the tribunal accepted that this could potentially be seen as a detriment, but found the respondent had shown a legitimate explanation: concerns arising from the audit observations and missing training records, together with the need to maintain sterile standards and regulatory compliance. The refusal of QA work placement was found to have been Dr Holt’s decision, based on staffing and fairness considerations rather than any protected act, and not treatment a reasonable employee would regard as detrimental. The tribunal also found that Ms Sarah Jones did not snatch documents from the claimant, but acted to place training papers in the correct file, and that the November 2023 band 5 allegation failed because the claimant did not apply for the role. It therefore dismissed the victimisation claims.