self representing For the v Respondent — 2025

The tribunal found that Mr Z Lajimi was unfairly dismissed by Travelodge Hotels Limited. The respondent relied on conduct: alleged failure to work contracted hours, inaccurate recording of hours on Fourth, and a discriminatory comment to a team member. Although the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed those matters, it held that the investigation was not as thorough as was reasonable because the respondent did not properly investigate the claimant's case that he worked flexibly and from home, did not adequately follow up the evidence said to support that position, and did not interview VK about the allegation that MM had said the claimant would not last in post.

The tribunal was also critical of the grievance process. It found that the claimant's complaint that MM had influenced witnesses was not properly investigated, including because VK was not asked the obvious question about the alleged remark. That failure affected the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole. The tribunal accepted that some of the underlying allegations were proved, including the sex comment to Angie/AS and the way the claimant handled CK's acting-up arrangement, but it held that no reasonable employer would have dismissed on allegations 1 and 2 on the evidence that had been gathered, and that allegation 3 could not properly be assessed in isolation from the investigative failings.

The automatic unfair dismissal complaint based on protected disclosures was withdrawn on Day 4. The direct discrimination claims on grounds of association with a disabled person, sex, age and race were dismissed. On the disability-related claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's son was disabled, but found that MM's decision to postpone the appraisal, the later suspension, and the handling of the working-pattern issue had non-discriminatory explanations connected to the complaints and disciplinary investigation.

On sex, age and race, the tribunal rejected most of the alleged incidents, including the repeated "difficult customer" allegation and the suggestion that MM's actions were motivated by protected characteristics. It did find that MM had overstepped the mark on 16 February 2023 when speaking to VK, but concluded that this arose from the fast-moving investigation and was not shown to be because of sex, age or race. The detriment complaint on grounds of dependants leave failed because the claimant did not establish a qualifying s.57A ERA 1996 request and, in any event, the tribunal held that the complaint was out of time. On remedy, the tribunal reduced any compensatory award by 20% for contributory conduct and the basic award by 25% for conduct before dismissal; all other remedy issues were listed for a hearing on 8 September 2025.