Mr P Stanislas, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The Tribunal first dealt with amendment and withdrawal issues. It allowed the Claimant to amend the second claim to include a section 15 disability discrimination complaint about Mr Kingham's 11 January 2018 appeal outcome, but it held that complaint was brought out of time and later dismissed it. The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, and the section 15 complaints about stopping sick pay and failing to allow meetings with managers, were withdrawn and dismissed forthwith.

The direct race discrimination complaints about the handling of the Claimant's 2017 grievances were dismissed. The Tribunal held that those complaints were out of time and, in any event, rejected the claim on the facts: it accepted the Respondent's explanation that the 2015/2016 matter was an individual bullying and harassment grievance, while the 2017 matter was treated as a collective grievance. The Tribunal did not accept that the difference in treatment was because the Claimant was Black.

The unlawful deduction of wages complaints were dismissed. As to the £203.09 deduction for 4 September 2017, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had been told on 1 August 2017 that he was required to attend the continuing development course on 4 to 7 September 2017, so there was no breach of contract and no unlawful deduction. It also rejected the Respondent's res judicata argument based on county court proceedings. The separate claim about non-payment of company sick pay from 24 November 2017 to 26 January 2018 failed because the Tribunal found the suspension of company sick pay was linked to the Claimant's failure to attend occupational health appointments and sickness review meetings.

The disability discrimination complaint about Mr Kingham's appeal outcome was dismissed. The Tribunal held it was out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. In any event, it found that Mr Kingham reviewed the attendance history, noted the Claimant's recorded SEA sickle-cell absences, and upheld the warning on the basis that those items remained recorded items of non-attendance rather than as a fresh discriminatory decision. The victimisation claim and the unfair dismissal claim were both dismissed because the Tribunal found the correspondence and sickness management steps were proper, that company sick pay remained suspended because the Claimant had not engaged with the process, and that dismissal on 26 January 2018 was for medical incapability after repeated non-engagement with occupational health and case conference arrangements.