Member McColl Tribunal Member Gallacher Mr S Kimani v HFD Security Limited — 2022

The claimant worked as a security guard for HFD Security Limited from 30 September 2019 at the Bothwell Street site in Glasgow. He brought claims of direct discrimination because of race and harassment related to race. The tribunal recorded that, at a preliminary hearing on 17 May 2022, the harassment complaints had been presented out of time but time was extended on a just and equitable basis.

On the direct discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was dismissed, but found that the dismissal was not less favourable treatment because the claimant was treated as others would have been treated in the same or materially similar circumstances. It accepted CY, WW and QA as comparators for the dismissal situation and found that they would also have been dismissed had they attended disciplinary hearings. It did not accept the claimant's reliance on WW's March/April 2020 illness absence as a comparator, because that absence was authorised and dealt with under the respondent's sickness procedure.

The tribunal found that the reason for the dismissal was the respondent's belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct by leaving site without authorisation, failing to carry out patrols and falsifying the daily occurrence report to show that patrols had been done. It found that the claimant's race played no part in the decision to summarily dismiss him, and the direct race discrimination complaint was dismissed.

On harassment, the tribunal addressed each alleged incident separately, including JR's October 2019 comment about having worked with the claimant before, SS's 6 December 2019 remark that the claimant looked like a "fat Edouard", VR's repeated comments to QA that he disliked working with the claimant because the claimant could not do his job properly, IS telling the claimant to "fuck off", and KK saying he did not understand the claimant. The tribunal accepted that some of this conduct occurred and was unwanted, but found that none of it was related to race. The claimant also accepted that the allegation in paragraph 11(f) was not race-related. The harassment claim was therefore dismissed.