Mr Y Stewart v Safestyle Security Services Limited — 2020

Mr Y Stewart, a security guard employed by Safestyle Security Services Limited for only part of 6 and 7 October 2018, complained that Mr Evans harassed him and discriminated against him on the basis of race during his induction at the Nova site in Nottingham. The tribunal heard competing accounts about the fire alarm system terminology and the surrounding conduct, including Mr Evans' use of the terms 'master panel' and 'slave panels', a later repetition of 'slave' when continuing the tour, and a comment about the speed of the paperwork.

The tribunal preferred Mr Evans' evidence on the central factual disputes. It found that the terminology used was widely used in technical and industry contexts, that Mr Evans had used it consistently with other new starters, and that he was checking the claimant's understanding rather than directing the language at him. It also placed weight on Mr Stewart's emails to Mr Hawkings on 6 and 7 October 2018, which the tribunal considered warm and focused on wanting less supervision rather than on any racial complaint. On that basis, the harassment complaint failed because the conduct was not unwanted, was not related to race, and did not have the required purpose or effect. The alternative direct race discrimination complaint also failed because the tribunal found no less favourable treatment and no race-based reason for Mr Evans' conduct.

The dismissal on 7 October 2018 was found to have been prompted by Mr Stewart leaving site during his first shift, together with the unresolved paperwork and his lack of receptiveness to the induction process. The tribunal found nothing in the pre-dismissal emails to suggest the respondent knew of, or was acting because of, any protected act or anticipated protected act, so the victimisation complaint about the dismissal failed. The tribunal then considered the grievance email sent on 11 October 2018 as a protected act, but held that Mr Grocott's investigation and decision letter were not motivated by that complaint or any belief that Mr Stewart would bring proceedings. Although the tribunal noted that aspects of the grievance handling were not ideal, it found that Mr Grocott sought an account from Josh independently, did not share the complaint with Mr Evans, and did not act victimisingly. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.