In person For the v Mr R Santy, Solicitor — 2018

The claimant, a temporary retail worker at the Luton store, brought claims including race discrimination and money claims. After hearing from the claimant and Ms Burgess, the tribunal preferred Ms Burgess' evidence on the disputed events and said the claimant often compared herself with colleagues without the necessary like-for-like context or knowledge of their individual circumstances.

The tribunal rejected each of the pleaded direct race discrimination allegations. It found no race discrimination in the timing of the claimant's staff discount card, the rule about buying items after store closure, the mobile phone incident, the WhatsApp issues, the payslip deductions, the keeping of management notes, or the decision to escort her from the staff area after dismissal. It found that the dismissal was because of unsatisfactory levels of lateness, and that the post-dismissal exclusion order was based on a logged incident and a reasonable belief that the underlying report was true and accurate.

By consent, the second respondent was ordered to pay notice pay of £236.80 and holiday pay of £516.15. The tribunal then applied a 25% uplift of £188.24 under section 207A TULRCA 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice: the claimant was not allowed her chosen companion when the hearing proceeded, and the dismissal letter omitted a right of appeal. The total payable was £941.19, and the tribunal recorded that the awards were against the second respondent only.