Mr J Mayanja v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council — 2022

The claimant worked as a civil enforcement officer from 8 January 2018 until his dismissal on 22 May 2019. The tribunal refused his late application to add direct race and sex discrimination claims, applying Selkent and the overriding objective and noting the application came years out of time and would have required postponing the hearing. The tribunal also noted that it was not dealing with an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient service.

The claimant's victimisation claim failed because the relevant decision-makers did not act because of the protected acts relied on. Mr O'Donnell did not know of the claimant's support for Mr Gilmour and did not believe the claimant had done or might do a protected act. Mr Kippax also did not know of the protected acts when he decided to dismiss. Ms Bryan was aware of the support for Mr Gilmour, but the tribunal accepted her evidence that she escalated the matter to a disciplinary hearing because the investigation had not resolved the allegations, not because of the protected acts.

The harassment claim related to the respondent's attempts to recover sums said to be owing after termination. The tribunal accepted that the debt-recovery steps could create a hostile or intimidating environment, but found that they were part of a routine leaver process applied mechanically and were not related to race. The indirect race discrimination claim failed because the claimant was challenging bespoke decisions about his own circumstances rather than a provision, criterion or practice of general application. The tribunal referred to Ishola when explaining that indirect discrimination requires a PCP, and said that even if the respondent's fit note requirement had been engaged, it would have been proportionate if applied flexibly where the absence arose overseas.

The claimant's breach of contract claim also failed. The tribunal found that he had not proved the original return flight he said he had booked, that the medical material he produced did not convincingly evidence the illness he relied on, and that his explanations for the absence were dishonest. On that basis the tribunal held that he had fundamentally breached the contract of employment, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily without notice. The respondent's counterclaim succeeded for £603.20 in total, made up of £187.44 for overpaid salary and £415.76 for excess annual leave.