Case 4103484/2020 · Employment Tribunal
: EA Farrell R Taggart B Chiwara v Virgin Media Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103484/2020
- Decision date
- 29 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- EA Farrell, R Taggart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: EA Farrell R Taggart B Chiwara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is of black African origin, worked as a Field Sales Agent. He complained that door allocation and other management treatment by Craig Clarke were unfair and race-related, and that his later suspension, disciplinary process and dismissal were linked to race and/or earlier grievances. The Tribunal found that the door allocation system used by Mr Clarke differed from the claimant's previous manager's approach, but was applied across the team, and that other team members who did not share the claimant's race were also affected by the same allocation issues.
The respondent's Fraud and Revenue Assurance team investigated accounts booked under the claimant's agent number after customer complaints about identity theft and duplicate bank details. Gordon Sneddon dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had misused customer details when loading orders. The Tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation and procedure. The dismissal was held to be fair under section 98 ERA 1996.
The Tribunal dismissed the Equality Act claims. It found no evidence that race was a significant influence on the allocation of doors, the requirement to work in Govan, the disciplinary process, dismissal, grievance outcome, or appeal. It also found no PCP causing particular disadvantage to those sharing the claimant's race, no unwanted conduct related to race for the harassment claim, and no detriment because of the claimant's 2018 protected act for the victimisation claim. As no claims succeeded, no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in gross misconduct after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010, relying on race/black African origin, including allocation of doors, being asked to work in Govan, the disciplinary process and dismissal. The Tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude treatment or dismissal was because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010, relying on management practices and the grievance and disciplinary procedures. The Tribunal found no identified or proven PCP causing particular disadvantage to those sharing the claimant's race; where suspension/contact restrictions applied, no particular disadvantage was shown and the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 based on alleged conduct by Craig Clarke including allocation of fresh lightning doors, sales target adjustment, vehicle audit, visiting failed installation addresses, alleged discussion with another team member and alleged suggestion of return to Edinburgh. The Tribunal found no conduct related to race from which harassment could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- band of reasonable responses
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Barton Guidelines
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- significant influence
- Madrassy v Nomura International
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.