Mr K Chima v Iliad Solutions Ltd — 2022

The tribunal dismissed every claim brought by Mr K Chima against Iliad Solutions Ltd. It found that his account of the 6 September 2022 call with Ms Shah, including the alleged racial slurs, was not reliable and that the respondent witnesses were to be preferred. The tribunal also found that no phone call took place on 7 September 2022, and that the claimant had not made the alleged disclosures or complaints to Ms Mishra or Mr Nicholson on 8 September 2022.

On the factual findings, the tribunal held that the 6 September 2022 call was about work expectations and performance, not racial abuse. It found that Ms Shah did not use the words alleged by the claimant, did not say Black people were the laziest people she had worked with, and did not say she would get him sacked. The claimant’s later messages did not mention racial slurs or any complaint of that kind, and the tribunal found that he never raised a complaint about Ms Shah’s conduct with anyone at the respondent.

Applying s.43B, s.103A and s.47B ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the whistleblowing claims failed because there was no qualifying/protected disclosure. It further found that Mr Karalis had decided to dismiss the claimant on or around 16 August 2022, before the alleged disclosures, so the automatic unfair dismissal complaint would have failed in any event. The detriment allegations also failed because the alleged conduct was not proved and the tribunal found that the claimed detriments were not established on the evidence.

For the Equality Act claims, the tribunal applied s.13, s.26, s.27 and s.136 EqA 2010, together with the principles in Shamoon and Madarassy. It dismissed direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation because the alleged racist comments were not made, the claimant did not do the pleaded protected act, and there was no complaint to investigate. The tribunal recorded that, on its factual findings, it did not need to decide whether the dismissal was for capability or performance reasons or whether any causal link existed once the claimant’s factual case had failed.