Claimant v AAAtraq Limited

The tribunal found that the redundancy was genuine and the Claimant's role no longer existed. However, the respondent conceded that the process for making the Claimant redundant could have been better. There was minimal consultation and no appeal process. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The Claimant would, however, have been dismissed in any event two weeks later had a fair process been followed (Polkey reduction applied).

The tribunal found no evidence that any of the alleged acts of less favourable treatment (including CRM software notice, criticism of performance, aggressive emails, and commission issues) were because of the Claimant's race. Where comparators were named they were not appropriate. The tribunal was not satisfied that facts existed from which discrimination could be inferred. The burden of proof never shifted to the respondent.

Most allegations failed because they either did not happen, did not relate to race, or were not objectively reasonable to have the proscribed effect. However, one allegation succeeded: a WhatsApp message from James Watson stating 'but he is Bajan and one has to remember that' was unwanted conduct related to race. The tribunal found this was a negative comment based on the Claimant's nationality. The respondent was vicariously liable under s.109(2) Equality Act 2010 as Watson was acting with the authority of the respondent.

The tribunal found that the alleged use of terms like 'schoolboy', 'junior', and 'kid' either did not occur or were not used because of the Claimant's age. The use of 'schoolboy errors' was a common phrase not directed at the Claimant. References to 'junior salesperson' or 'junior sales roles' related to the role, not the Claimant's age. There was no evidence the comments were made because of age.

The tribunal found that the alleged comments either did not happen or were not related to the Claimant's age. The use of phrases like 'not a £175k a year salesperson' was factual and related to the role, not age. The tribunal was not satisfied that any unwanted conduct relating to age occurred. The Claimant raised no grievance at the time, making it more likely he was not subjected to age-related comments.

The tribunal found that the deductions for tax, National Insurance, and student loan repayments in the final payslip were authorised by statute. There was confusion over a £6,000 payment, but the tax deductions rectified the situation and put the Claimant in the position he should have been in if the payment had been processed correctly initially. No unlawful deduction was found.