Case 3302336/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302336/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Panel members
- Mrs C Grant, Mrs I Sood
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Bylinski worked for Boogaloo Enterprises Ltd as a bar attendant from May 2019 until his dismissal on 10 December 2019. His claim form advanced race and sex discrimination, and also holiday pay; the tribunal recorded that the holiday pay claim had since been paid by the respondent, so the hearing concerned the discrimination allegations.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Gerry O'Boyle could on occasions be abrasive and have mood swings, but found no basis for inferring treatment because of race or sex. It found that the claimant was a bar attendant with duties that included glass collection, serving drinks, accepting payments, restocking, moving deliveries to the cellar, and operating the glass and cardboard crushers. It also found that shift supervisors had extra supervisory duties and were not proper comparators for the claimant.
On the individual incidents relied on, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct was either justified or not made out as less favourable treatment. It found that questions about cleaning, alcohol consumption during a shift, the handling of a visibly drunk team member, leaving the claimant to cover the bar during a meeting, and concerns about drinks taken from the staff fridge while off duty did not show discriminatory treatment. The tribunal also found that there was no evidence that female staff had been treated more favourably in the way alleged.
The dismissal arose after a stock audit covering 10 October to 21 November 2019 showed a shortage of £6,560.33. On 10 December 2019 Mr O'Boyle, Mr Keane and Mr Fuller met the claimant, questioned him about the shortage, and the tribunal found that Mr O'Boyle suspected the claimant may have been responsible but had no proof. When the claimant admitted the earlier wine and beer incidents, Mr O'Boyle dismissed him. The tribunal found that all staff were interviewed about the stock loss and that a British or female comparator in materially similar circumstances would have been treated in the same way, so both discrimination claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent's conduct was not because of nationality or race and that any hypothetical British comparator in materially similar circumstances would have been treated the same way. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent's conduct was not because of sex and that the claimant had not established less favourable treatment compared with women in materially different circumstances. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.