Mr Adekunle Adewale v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham — 2017

The tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaints of direct age, sex and race discrimination, age, sex and race harassment, victimisation, and a pay claim concerning unpaid holiday pay. It noted an earlier preliminary ruling had found that he did not have a qualifying disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, and it referred to Rowstock v Jessemey on post-termination victimisation and to Igen Ltd v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura International plc on the burden of proof.

On the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal found that the claimant's redundancy/redeployment, grievance, absence-management, dismissal and appeal issues were explained by a genuine restructure and by the sickness absence procedures, not by age, sex or race. It accepted that the claimant had referred to an earlier tribunal claim when corresponding with Julia Claydon, but found no evidence that the relevant decision-makers acted because of that protected act. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's comparator cases, including Ms Corrine Rudd and Mr Christopher Beasley, because their circumstances were materially different or, in Mr Beasley's case, because the claimant himself had been the decision-maker for part of the period relied on.

The post-termination complaints about occupational health data, the notes of the absence hearing, and the appeal process also failed. The tribunal found that the occupational health documents were handled through secure disclosure, that the delay in providing typed notes was not shown to be detrimental or linked to race, sex or age, and that the appeal hearing was not postponed because the claimant had not asked for a postponement and the respondent's correspondence showed that the papers had been sent. The notice pay claim was withdrawn.

On the pay issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved any unlawful deduction or underpayment of holiday pay. It accepted the respondent's annual leave calculations, which showed that by the end of August 2016 the claimant had taken more leave than he had accrued, and it therefore dismissed the holiday pay complaint. No monetary award was made.