Mr R Trindade v Silverman Opticians Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr Ricardo Trindade's direct religion or belief discrimination complaint against Silverman Opticians Ltd. His case was that he had been treated less favourably because he was not Jewish. Some allegations were not proved as pleaded; other events were established, including missed promotions, colleagues handling payslips, refusal of parental leave, SSP payments, disciplinary investigations and dismissal. Some proved matters could amount to detriments, but the evidence, considered individually and cumulatively, did not support an inference that religion or belief was the reason. Jewish employees also missed promotion and had payslips handled by colleagues. The tribunal rejected the allegation that parental leave was refused punitively, taking account of the respondent's offer to pay for the claimant's parents to travel to the UK for childcare.

The harassment complaint was also dismissed. The tribunal found no connection between the proved conduct and religion or belief, and no purpose or effect meeting the statutory test for harassment. It considered the claimant's perception, the circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the alleged effect. It accepted that CCTV cameras installed on 29 December 2022 were a safety feature and rejected the allegation that they were installed exclusively to monitor the claimant or obtain his personal information.

The victimisation complaint succeeded only concerning withdrawal or non-payment of bonus. The grievance of 27 October 2022 was a protected act. Mr Michael de Jong accepted that he withdrew the bonus because the claimant had lodged a grievance and was no longer considered deserving of it. The tribunal found this was a detriment caused by the protected act. It found no entitlement to salary boosts and no causal link between the protected act and the other alleged detriments. Considerable tension and conflict had existed before the grievance.

The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The respondent relied on misconduct findings reached through a disciplinary process conducted by Peninsula. The tribunal gave limited weight to the disputed stock-taking requirement, but found reasonable grounds for the respondent's belief that the claimant had repeatedly failed to carry out core duties. These included collecting jobs from the shop floor, completing work within the required time and carrying out glazing and customer jobs. The respondent was entitled to take account of his live final written warning.

The appeal partly succeeded and recommended reinstatement, which the tribunal treated as a significant matter in the claimant's favour. However, findings remained concerning failure to collect work and complete a customer job. Although the procedure had flaws, including an initial failure to provide details of some evidence, the claimant could address the substance of the allegations during the disciplinary and appeal processes. Viewed as a whole, the investigation, procedure and decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.