In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard no evidence and dealt with the case on strike-out and amendment applications. The claimant had worked as a viewber for about 23 months, had completed at least 150 viewings, and had earned over 3,600 from the respondent, with income of about 15 per month. On 22 July 2020 he accepted a 30-minute viewing at 6pm for 8 plus travel expenses; at 12:38 the respondent sent an email extending the booking to one hour and asking him to accept if he could attend or reject if he could not, but he neither accepted nor rejected and did not attend the viewing.

The direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 37, together with the race-related harassment complaint. The judge found the respondent was following its usual written procedure, including its practice of amalgamating linked bookings, and that the sequence of emails and phone or text attempts was an ordinary operational response to the missed appointment. There was no identified comparator, no document supporting the claimant's case, and the respondent's records showed the work was later carried out by another black viewber.

The victimisation claim was also struck out. The tribunal held that the claimant's failure to accept or reject the changed booking was not, viewed objectively, a protected act engaging the Equality Act, so the later calls, cancellation email and request for keys could not amount to victimisation. The judge added that, even if detriment were considered, those matters were not detriments in the sense of Shamoon v RUC.

The breach of contract claim was withdrawn and therefore dismissed on withdrawal. The alternative notice-pay claim as unlawful deductions failed because the claimant was, at the highest, a zero-hours worker and could not show any sum due for an unworked notice period; the 13 August 2020 letter was treated as consistent with acceptance that the relationship had ended. Applications to amend to add national minimum wage and holiday pay claims were refused as out of time and as an extensive recasting of the case, and the judge was sceptical that keyholding time counted as working time.