Mr S Saeed, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2020

At the outset the tribunal dealt with withdrawn allegations and amendment applications. It recorded that all indirect discrimination claims were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal, and that several direct discrimination allegations were also withdrawn. The claimant's attempted commission, wages and referral-fee amendments were refused because the claims were unclear, insufficiently particularised, and significantly out of time; the tribunal later recorded that the first claim did not raise an extant wages claim and that no breach of contract claim was pleaded in the second case.

On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was a senior sales employee in a unique 'overlay' role supporting Discovery sales. It accepted that the respondent's business performance had declined, that Mr Newman reviewed the business and concluded the claimant's role could be removed, and that Mr Tiong made the final redundancy decision in October 2019. Applying Burrell and Murray together with s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation, consultation was adequate, the pool of one was justified, and the refusal to offer the claimant the junior SAE role was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.

The direct discrimination claims relying on race and religion or belief also failed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's account of Mr Newman's alleged comment about religion, found that he was not prevented from attending Friday prayers, and held that the Presidents Club, employee forum, and seating-plan allegations did not provide facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Applying s.13 and s.136 Equality Act 2010, together with Shamoon, Anya, Igen, Madarassy and Hewage, the tribunal found no basis to shift the burden of proof and concluded that the dismissal and the surrounding treatment were explained by redundancy rather than race or religion or belief.