In person v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, an Operational Postal Grade at Kiln Farm, brought claims arising from workplace conflict over a number of incidents between 2019 and 2022, including complaints about Michael Collins, Steve Wood, the handling of a missing chair, and the offer of alternative work after a reduction in work in the Enquiries Office. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, a colleague, and two management witnesses, and considered an agreed transcript of the claimant's covertly recorded meetings.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found that some complained-of conduct did occur, including a rude remark by Mr Collins in January 2020, Mr Wood telling the claimant to stop making noise while he was burping, and Mr Wood saying that the claimant was taking the situation too far and was not helping the office. However, it concluded that these matters arose from workplace tension, the claimant being away from the office or not pulling his weight, and general frustration, rather than race. Many of the earlier allegations were found not proved, and for the 2020 allegations the tribunal said that they would in any event have been out of time and not just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal also rejected the allegations concerning photographing or videoing the claimant, the alleged flatulence noises, bias by Mr Kidwell, and deliberate removal of the chair. In relation to the missing chair, it found that the respondent took the matter seriously, checked CCTV, and arranged a replacement chair, but the evidence did not establish who moved it or that it was moved by a respondent employee. Applying the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination or harassment could be inferred, and in any event the respondent had shown that any treatment was not because of race.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that the respondent was not in repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, that the workplace issues did not amount to bullying of the kind alleged, and that the offer of alternative roles in the letter of 1 August 2022 reflected reduced workload in the Enquiries Office rather than any wrongful conduct. It found that the claimant resigned because he did not want to move to another role, not because of any breach by the respondent, so he had not been constructively dismissed.