Mr H Jones v Andros UK Limited — 2026

Mr H Jones succeeded in one complaint of harassment related to race against Andros UK Limited. At a performance improvement plan (PIP) meeting on 29 January 2024, Lucian Paduraru said that Mr Cardosa, a black colleague aged 65, would “run around like a little monkey” to get things done. Mr Jones, a black African-Caribbean man, found the comparison deeply offensive. The tribunal found that the remark was unwanted conduct related to race and reasonably had the effect of violating his dignity under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found no discernible racial intent. It accepted Mr Paduraru's explanation about the word's different connotations in Romania and found that he intended to compliment Mr Cardosa's productivity. That did not prevent liability for the remark's effect. The tribunal based its decision on the violation of dignity, treating the comment as a one-off incident without finding that it created a hostile or other proscribed working environment. Age-related harassment failed because the comparison did not cast aspersions on an age group. The remaining harassment allegations concerning the HR vacancy and PIP meeting arrangements also failed.

Mr Jones's complaints about plastic fragments being washed towards a river and potholes around the site were protected disclosures. The tribunal accepted that he reasonably believed these concerns were in the public interest and tended to show relevant environmental or safety failures, despite the respondent's protective measures. His complaints about a dead pigeon above the milk delivery bay did not qualify. The milk and transfer pipes formed a closed system, which he knew about; the tribunal found that he lacked a genuine belief in the alleged public-health risk and that any such belief would not have been reasonable. It did not accept that he had reported an increase in the rat population.

The whistleblowing detriment claim failed because the protected disclosures did not cause the treatment complained of. Interrupted breaks, lack of notice of the PIP meeting, the comment about Mr Cardosa and placement on the PIP amounted to detriments, but arose from work requirements or performance concerns. Other criticisms and instructions were found to be justified or did not amount to detriments. The tribunal accepted that performance concerns had existed for months and that damage to a milk-testing instrument on 29 January prompted the PIP meeting. Mr Jones had asserted his statutory right to rest breaks in good faith on 23 January, but the tribunal found no link between that assertion and any detriment.

The direct race and age discrimination claims were dismissed. The remark already upheld as harassment could not also constitute direct race discrimination because section 212(1) excludes harassment from the relevant definition of detriment. A younger employee with the same performance issues would have received the same comparison with Mr Cardosa. Race and age played no part in the PIP meeting arrangements. The tribunal rejected the allegation that the HR vacancy's experience requirement had increased from three years to five after Mr Jones expressed interest. That complaint was also out of time, and no just and equitable extension was granted. Alternatively, the three-year requirement was justified by the need for an experienced employee in a small HR team.