Mr M Nowak v Daniel Thwaites plc — 2020

Mr M Nowak worked as a housekeeper at the Langdale Chase Hotel from April 2014 until November 2017. After the respondent took over the hotel in April 2017 and introduced changes associated with the move from a three-star to a four-star operation, he resigned on 6 November 2017 and brought claims for direct and indirect race discrimination, harassment on grounds of race, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge Phil Allen and lay members Ms B Hillon and Mr B Rowen, and determined liability only.

On the evidence, the tribunal accepted that the claimant did good work and that there was disruption after the change in ownership, but it rejected the core allegations against Mr Vincent. It found that the claimant was not unduly pressured to sign the new contract, that the contract was amended to meet one of his concerns, that the non-payment of tips in November 2017 was a clerical error later corrected, and that there was no proof that Mr Vincent ignored the claimant, refused meetings, or responded aggressively to him. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's evidence, and the supporting evidence from some other witnesses, where it was broad, lacking in detail, or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents.

The direct race discrimination and harassment allegations failed because the tribunal did not find the alleged conduct proved and did not find race was the reason for any treatment. On language, the tribunal found there was no rule requiring English in staff areas or the staff room; the practice accepted by the respondent was only an encouragement to use English in guest-facing areas. That practice was found to be a legitimate and proportionate means of achieving the aim of good guest service. The tribunal said that, had there been a ban on other languages in the staff room, it would not have regarded that as proportionate. The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed because there was no fundamental breach of contract or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the tribunal found the claimant did not resign in response to any such breach but after obtaining alternative employment and after some delay.