Mr J Primus v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed as a general assistant and had previously raised a Fair Treatment complaint alleging race discrimination, then brought Equality Act proceedings. In December 2020 he posted on Yammer asking why some managers at the Hadleigh Road store had racist mindsets, and later reposted after deletion. The respondent received Fair Treatment complaints from managers and suspended the claimant pending investigation into the posts, alleged breach of confidentiality, and later use of Yammer while suspended.

The tribunal found that, in the 12 December 2020 conversation with Mr Ross-Dean, the claimant made unspecified allegations that two managers were racist but did not give sufficient factual content to amount to a protected disclosure. It also found that, even if there had been a protected disclosure, the reason for dismissal was not that conversation but the conduct matters found by the dismissing officer.

For ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed for conduct and held a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It noted concerns about aspects of the process, including the use of the word "spurious" and the claimant's perception of the investigator's connection with one manager, but found these did not make the dismissal unfair. The tribunal also found no breach of the ACAS Code.

On victimisation, the tribunal found the claimant had done protected acts, including raising the Fair Treatment complaint, bringing the first claim, and making an allegation on 12 December 2020. However, it found those protected acts were not a reason for dismissal; the decision was based on the Yammer posts, posting during suspension, breach of confidentiality, and the respondent's view of the breakdown in the working relationship.