Claimant v Little & Large Inns Limited

The tribunal found that the alleged incidents (offensive music, London Pride glasses, use of the word 'dog', cling film, Yabba Dabba Doo remark) were either innocent events misinterpreted by the claimant or had innocent explanations. The tribunal found no tangible linkage to race and noted the diverse workforce. The claimant's perceptions were not objectively reasonable and there was no evidence of less favourable treatment because of race.

The sole allegation concerned being given a pork sausage sandwich after stating he did not eat bacon. The tribunal accepted this occurred but found no reason for complaint. The chef had no reason to know this would offend the claimant's Christian beliefs (pork not being prohibited in mainstream Christianity) and there was an innocent explanation - sausage being a natural alternative to bacon in a breakfast sandwich.

The tribunal concluded that the alleged conduct did not constitute unwanted conduct related to race. While the claimant perceived it as creating a hostile environment, this perception was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances. The events were either imagined entirely (knife incident, Dean squaring up), misinterpreted (dog comments, cling film), or had innocent explanations (music was turned off when complained about). The conduct did not violate dignity or create an intimidating environment within the meaning of s.26 Equality Act.

The tribunal found that the alleged protected acts did not constitute complaints of discrimination. The Yabba Dabba Doo WhatsApp post was too remote and obscure to be an allegation of contravening the Equality Act. The AK-47 remark was found not to have been made. Asking for music to be turned off did not amount to a protected act. Additionally, the General Manager never saw the WhatsApp post at the time of dismissal.

The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had committed a fundamental breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. His conduct was increasingly unmanageable, he intimidated colleagues (including a pregnant woman and a 17-year-old), made serious unfounded allegations (knife threat, threat to punch), and caused successive rows in the kitchen at an extremely busy time. The working relationships had broken down due to his conduct.

The tribunal found no underpayment of wages. A contemporaneous note showed the claimant and manager discussed hours worked, identified a discrepancy related to not clocking out between shifts, and the claimant agreed he had been paid correctly. There was no further complaint at the time.