Claimant v Luisa Spagnoli UK Limited

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence about conduct issues including lateness, sickness certification failures, and conflicts with colleagues. The claimant's race (Arab) played no role in the decision to dismiss. Other Arabic-speaking staff were employed and valued by the respondent. No facts were established from which discrimination could be inferred.

The Tribunal found the dismissal was due to conduct issues, not the claimant's Muslim faith. Other Muslim staff were employed. The claimant herself did not raise religion as an issue until after her dismissal. No prima facie case was established and the burden of proof did not shift.

The grievance was investigated and rejected on its merits by Ms Soave. There was no evidence that race played any role in the outcome. Ms Mahajna, who had a successful grievance process, shared the same protected characteristics as the claimant.

Ms Soave's rejection of the grievance was based on genuine conclusions about lack of merit, not the claimant's religion. The truncated process was consistent with advice given due to the claimant's short service.

The appeal against dismissal was not upheld because Ms Soave genuinely concluded it lacked merit. The respondent's explanations about sick pay and dismissal procedures were lawful and consistent with the claimant's contract. No facts established race as a factor.

The appeal outcome was not influenced by the claimant's religion but by Ms Soave's genuine assessment that the dismissal was justified and procedurally acceptable given the claimant's length of service. No prima facie case was made out.

The claimant alleged three implied terms: that HR must be involved in dismissal, that ACAS Code would be followed, and that disciplinary procedures would be followed. The Tribunal found none of these could be implied. The contract expressly stated disciplinary procedures were non-contractual. No basis for implication was established.