Mr T Otokiti v Controlls Solution Group — 2022

The claimant was dismissed on 1 July 2019 after the incident on 31 May 2019 at the Old Trafford site and the earlier warning he had received following the Carrington matter. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct. It accepted that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, that the claimant admitted he had been in the East Stand box watching television, and that he knew or should have known that the East Stand was a restricted area.

The tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that the claimant had committed misconduct. It found that the claimant had been warned on 23 May 2019 that similar conduct could lead to dismissal, and that dismissal without notice was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s Sleep Apnoea was a mitigating factor for falling asleep in the control room, but not for watching television in a restricted area. It also observed that the respondent should have made restricted areas and break arrangements clearer during induction, but that point did not make the dismissal unfair.

On race discrimination, the claimant relied on Mr Mungis as a comparator, but the tribunal found material differences: Mr Mungis had authority to use a box in the North Stand to manage a medical condition, whereas the claimant did not. The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude that the claimant had been treated less favourably because of race. It also found that the grievance investigation was not properly carried out, because Mr Shea did not follow up with Mr Grant or Mr Buckley before reaching his conclusion, but it did not find that failure to be race-related.

On harassment, the tribunal accepted that the CCTV monitoring, witness statements and grievance handling were unwanted and that they would have been hostile and degrading for the claimant. However, it found that the claimant had not proved they were related to race. The tribunal found that Mr Buckley and Mr Grant acted out of suspicion that the claimant was not doing his fair share, and that the lack of appetite to investigate the grievance further was caused by the claimant’s admissions after a second similar incident, not by his ethnicity. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.