In Person For the v Respondent — 2021

At a CVP hearing before EJ Webster with Mr P Adkins and Ms A Sansome, the tribunal noted serious disclosure and preparation problems, but its substantive findings turned on credibility and contemporaneous documents. It accepted that the Croydon store had become a hostile workplace with factions, but it did not accept the claimant's case that that environment itself proved race or age discrimination. The claimant's allegations were examined incident by incident, with the tribunal separating those it found had occurred from those it did not.

For the New Malden period, the tribunal found there had been a physical altercation with Mr Meakin on 6 May 2013, but the claimant had only described it at the time as open-handed slaps rather than a punch. It also accepted that Mr Meakin said something about staff nationality or not being English, but held both matters were far out of time and refused to extend time. The tribunal rejected the alleged fabricated customer-insult allegation and the alleged 'I have got you by the balls and there is no escape' remark, and it found the move to Croydon was a reasonable temporary step arising from the grievance and counter-grievance with Mr Clennon; the claimant later asked for that transfer to become permanent.

At Croydon, the tribunal found Mr Cook had spoken to the claimant about a complaint from Niki that he had taken a customer, but it found no basis to say that was because of race or age. It held there was no contractual entitlement to automatic 'sign off' for the additional monthly £300 because regional manager sign-off and an overall assessment of conduct were part of the process, and it found the claimant received his pro rata NPS payment of £250 for September 2019. It also rejected the alleged 'I hate you' comments and the allegation that Mr Porter said 'people like you should go back to your own country'.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had an altercation with Mr Boyd on 8 August 2019, said something threatening, and was suspended on 22 August 2019 pending disciplinary action. It held the suspension and the later disciplinary letter were based on that incident and not on race or age, and it found the 'hit list' evidence did not show a policy of dismissing black or older staff. When considering direct discrimination, it found the claimant had not established facts from which race or age discrimination could be inferred, and alternatively the respondent had proved behaviour-based reasons for the steps taken against him and other named employees. Applying the cited authorities on burden of proof, harassment, and constructive dismissal, including s.136 Equality Act 2010, Western Excavating, Omilaju, and Kaur, the tribunal held that there was no repudiatory breach or cumulative breach of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned to avoid the disciplinary process, so all claims were dismissed and no award was made.