Mr Dike Uwagwu v Wilson James Security Limited — 2023

The tribunal first dealt with the scope of the claims. It noted that an earlier complaint about the V&A assignment had already been struck out as out of time and was not determined. For the remaining race discrimination claim in case 3202027/2020, the tribunal found that the claimant's complaints about the Excel NHS Nightingale and Santander Camden assignments were responded to, escalated to senior managers, and not ignored. It therefore held that the claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude that he was treated less favourably because of race.

In case 3206097/2021, the tribunal considered allegations of direct race discrimination arising from the National History Museum incident on 20 March 2021, the ensuing investigation, the final written warning, and the later Science Museum shift issue. It found that the investigation was carried out in an ordinary and fair way, that the claimant was kept informed of the allegations, and that the decision to issue a final written warning was based on the evidence the investigator accepted. On the Science Museum point, the tribunal accepted that Ms Deleon instructed the control room not to give the claimant more shifts, but found that she did so because she believed he had moved to a BAT role and was no longer in her team, not because of race.

The tribunal also rejected the victimisation claim. It found that some of the alleged detriments did not occur, and that for the remaining matters the claimant had not shown the required causal link to his earlier tribunal proceedings. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on notice on 13 October 2021 for conduct reasons after a reasonable investigation and a fair disciplinary process. There was a difference of view within the tribunal about whether Mr Halse could safely conclude that the claimant had accepted the BAT role, but the tribunal was unanimous that dismissal was fair because of the remaining misconduct findings and the live final written warning. It held that the dismissal was neither race discrimination nor victimisation.