Mr C Vasilescu v Everyman Media Group plc — 2021

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint at a preliminary hearing because the Claimant did not have sufficient service for s.108 ERA 1996, and the separate harassment complaint was withdrawn. The remaining live complaints were breach of contract, victimisation, and direct race discrimination arising from the Claimant's dismissal on 17 March 2020 for removing a film from sale at Canary Wharf on 21 February 2020 without senior management authorisation.

On breach of contract, the tribunal preferred the Claimant's evidence that he had not been told that the practice of marking films as sold out to protect the catering service was prohibited. It found there was no established written policy, no clear warning or prohibition, and that the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct. The Respondent therefore had not justified summary dismissal and the Claimant was entitled to one month’s pay in lieu of notice, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the 17 October 2019 grievance alleging a racially motivated attack was a protected act, but it found insufficient evidence that later steps were caused by that grievance. It held that the transfer from Crystal Palace to Canary Wharf was voluntary and accompanied by a salary increase, and that the dismissal followed the February 2020 incident rather than the grievance. On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found that Ms Alex Young was an appropriate comparator: she had also removed films from sale in similar circumstances but received no sanction. It held that the Respondent had no satisfactory explanation for dismissing the Claimant while not disciplining Ms Young, and therefore upheld the race discrimination claim. Remedy was left to a further hearing.