Mr. F. Faherinia, union representative (with Ms Shehu, observer). For the v Respondent — 2017

The tribunal refused the claimant's late amendment under Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore, finding that it added new facts and witnesses and would cause delay and expense. It then dealt with the pleaded complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of race and religion or belief, victimisation, and the separate confidentiality point raised in the claim form.

On the facts, the claimant made a Work Life Balance application on about 10 July 2017. The tribunal found that the panel initially asked the claimant and two other applicants to resubmit because their proposed hours did not cover the working week, whereas other applications were approved because they matched a full week's cover. Mr Gardiner later refused the claimant's unchanged resubmission because it was impractical for the OMU's staffing and operating hours, and the appeal was then granted by Mr Reilly. The tribunal also found that on 20 and 21 September 2017 Mr Brennan told the claimant she could not vary her hours or use flexitime while on WLB, and that any unpaid leave request would have to go to the Governor.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's account of the 26 October 2017 welfare-check incident. It found that the claimant had reported sick on 23 October 2017, that attempts to contact her were made under the attendance procedure, and that Mr Gardiner asked for police attendance because he was concerned about the claimant and her children after several days without contact. The tribunal found no evidence that the police contact was linked to race or religion or belief, and it held that the respondent had requested a welfare check rather than a false missing-person report. It also held that the challenged matters before 25 October 2017 were potentially out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under British Coal Corporation v Keeble.

Applying the burden-of-proof approach in Igen Ltd v Wong and the comparator reasoning in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC, the tribunal concluded that there were no primary facts from which it could infer discrimination. It also held, relying on Martin v Devonshire's Solicitors, that there was no evidential basis for a contrary inference. The victimisation claim failed because the ET1 post-dated the welfare-check incident and the WLB appeal was not a protected act. On the confidentiality point, the tribunal found that the occupational health report had been disclosed with the claimant's consent. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.