Case 4107911/2018 · Employment Tribunal
: K Culloch Mrs A Shanahan Mr MD Rezaur Rahman v Common Thread Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107911/2018
- Decision date
- 29 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- K Culloch, Mrs A Shanahan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: K Culloch Mrs A Shanahan Mr MD Rezaur Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr MD Rezaur Rahman, worked as a therapeutic care worker in children's homes operated by Common Thread Limited. The tribunal accepted that he was repeatedly subjected to vile racist abuse and later homophobic abuse by young people in the homes, and it accepted that two disclosures of his sexual orientation to residents were inadvertent rather than deliberate. It also found that the respondent's managers used a therapeutic approach based on SCM training, supervision and escalation routes, and that the claimant had been trained to deal with abuse in that framework.
The race and sexual orientation discrimination claims were dismissed. Applying the reasoning in Unite the Union v Nailard and Sheffield City Council v Norouzi, the tribunal focused on the respondent's own acts and omissions rather than the conduct of third parties. It found that the respondent had a coherent system for dealing with abusive behaviour, that the claimant generally said he could cope with it, and that there was no evidence the respondent's response, or lack of further action, was because of race or sexual orientation. On the sexual orientation issue, the tribunal accepted the evidence that the disclosures were accidental and not motivated by hostility, which took the case outside discrimination on that ground.
The unlawful deduction of wages claim succeeded in relation to the £650 insurance-excess deduction made from the claimant's final pay. The tribunal held that the contractual deduction clause did not satisfy section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had not been given the necessary written notification of the effect of the provision, had not been told the amount of the excess, and had not been shown that the debt had been properly established before the deduction was made. The claimant had accepted the separate deduction for training fees, so the only sum ordered to be repaid was £650.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant was subjected to repeated racist abuse by young people in the homes, but held that the respondent's own conduct and response were not race-related and did not amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal accepted that homophobic abuse occurred and that disclosures of the claimant's sexuality were made inadvertently, but found no discriminatory act or omission by the respondent and no malicious intent behind the disclosures. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant challenged the £650 insurance-excess deduction from his final pay. He accepted the separate training-fee deduction. | Upheld | — | £650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £650
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Unite the Union v Nailard
- Sheffield City Council v Norouzi
- Land Registry v Grant
- Yorkshire Maintenance Company Ltd v Farr
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.