Mr K Vouzon v Transport UK London Bus Ltd — 2025

Mr Vouzon had worked as a bus driver at the Beddington depot since June 2004 and became branch secretary for Unite the Union in November 2019. After a dispute over union stand-down arrangements, and then an incident on 4 March 2022 during a trade union ballot, he was suspended, investigated and later given a final written warning. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen sitting alone and dealt first with amendment and strike-out applications, then with time limits and the merits of the pleaded claims.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the emails of 9 December 2021 and 21 January 2022 were not protected disclosures because they asked for information about stand-down arrangements rather than disclosing information tending to show wrongdoing. It found that part of the 24 January 2022 grievance, read together with the 15 February 2022 grievance meeting, did amount to a protected disclosure insofar as it alleged Ms Dixon was being coercively controlled by Mr Green. Even so, the tribunal found no causative link between that disclosure and the suspension on 4 March 2022, and it also held the claim was out of time.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis but rejected the claim on the merits. It found the suspension was prompted by reports that the claimant had used offensive language towards Ms Dixon, and that the investigation questions, the witness descriptions such as "shocking", "aggressive and desperate", "there may be something wrong with him" and "silliness", and the later disciplinary decision were not because of race. The tribunal held that the proposed comparators were not in materially similar circumstances and that the respondent's treatment of the claimant was not less favourable treatment because of his race. The associated harassment allegations also failed because the conduct complained of was not found to be unwanted conduct related to race and did not satisfy s.26 EqA 2010.

On trade union detriment, the tribunal accepted that the suspension prevented the claimant from taking part in the ballot on 4 and 11 March 2022 and that this was capable of amounting to a detriment for the purposes of s.146(1)(b) TULR(C)A 1992. However, it found that the respondent's sole or main purpose in suspending him was not to prevent or deter trade union activity, but to respond to the allegation of serious misconduct under its disciplinary policy. The tribunal also found that the 2 September 2022 letter was not a detriment for trade union purposes and did not have the necessary causal connection. All substantive claims were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.