Claimant v SBD Apparel Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent did investigate the claimant's grievance promptly and properly. The grievance was raised on 15 August, a meeting was held on 21 August, and a written outcome was provided. The differences in how the claimant's grievance and Mr Omar's complaint were handled were due to the different nature of the complaints and different investigators, not race. The tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably than Mr Omar and the claimant failed to discharge the first stage of the burden of proof.
Ms Gaunt's comment during the grievance meeting that 'Mr Omar was a protected characteristic but the claimant is not' was found to be unwanted and related to race. However, the tribunal found Ms Gaunt had no purpose to violate the claimant's dignity or create a hostile environment – her purpose was to investigate the complaint. The comment was a slip of the tongue immediately corrected and explained. The claimant gave no evidence of being upset or humiliated. Even if it had the proscribed effect, it would have been unreasonable for it to do so given the context. The comment did not meet the threshold of being sufficiently serious.
Facts
Claimant, a white British Facilities Manager, was made redundant with 3 months' notice in August 2024. A black South African colleague, Bashir Omar, complained the claimant had treated him differently when PAT testing, suggesting racial motivation. After investigation and mediation where the claimant apologised twice, the matter appeared resolved. The claimant then raised a counter-grievance alleging he had been discriminated against because he is white, refused to return to work, and brought tribunal claims of direct race discrimination (alleging failure to investigate his grievance) and harassment (based on HR manager's comment about protected characteristics).
Decision
Both claims dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant's grievance was properly investigated with a meeting held within 6 days and a written outcome provided. The differences in handling the two complaints were due to their different nature and different investigators, not race. The HR manager's comment about protected characteristics was clumsy but immediately corrected, was not intended to violate dignity, and was not sufficiently serious to constitute harassment. Respondent's costs application for £20,000 also dismissed.
Practical note
Raising a complaint of discrimination in good faith does not itself constitute race discrimination against the alleged discriminator, and employees must not be deterred from raising genuine concerns by fear of retaliatory discrimination claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016044/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- SBD Apparel Ltd
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Facilities Manager
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No