Claimant v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited

Tribunal found no promise was made by HR officer SA to conduct a full investigation into why claimant was required to take annual leave due to security pass reactivation. The claimant had not proven emails were ignored. Even if emails were ignored, there was no evidence SA was influenced by the claimant's 2019 protected act. Claimant failed to present facts from which victimisation could be inferred.

The claimant was required to perform regular duties for 1.5 days because he did not have a return to work meeting until 20 July 2022. The reason for the delay in the meeting was that the assistant duty manager CG was only instructed to conduct it on 20 July, not 19 July. This was a non-discriminatory reason unconnected to the claimant's 2019 claim. No evidence that CG was influenced by the protected act.

Same factual matrix as victimisation claim regarding return to work. Tribunal found insufficient evidence regarding comparators (Alan King, Dominic Nugent, Albie) to establish material similarity. No evidence that CG was influenced by claimant's race. The reason for the delay in return to work meeting and therefore continuation of regular duties was timing of when CG was instructed to hold the meeting, a non-discriminatory reason.

Following altercation on 25 August 2022, managers GB and JT did not suspend Arun Clarke or take disciplinary action. Tribunal found the reason was that both parties indicated they did not want to take the matter further and no physical violence occurred. These were reasonable bases for the decision. No evidence that GB or JT were significantly influenced by claimant's 2019 protected act.

Same facts as victimisation claim regarding 25 August incident. No evidence from which tribunal could infer managers acted because of claimant's race. Broad assertions of institutional racism were made but without specific supporting evidence. The decision not to suspend or discipline was based on reasonable understanding that no physical violence occurred and both parties did not wish to escalate, a non-discriminatory reason.

Following incident on 27 November 2022 where AC called claimant 'fucking idiot', managers GS and WH did not suspend or take disciplinary action. Tribunal found the reason was that managers did not consider such language in their industrial workplace environment to warrant suspension or disciplinary action, particularly where claimant did not make clear he wished the matter escalated. No evidence of influence by 2019 protected act.

Same facts as victimisation claim for 27 November incident. No evidence that GS and WH would have treated a white person in same circumstances differently. The reason for not taking action was the nature of the industrial workplace where such language, though inappropriate, was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant suspension or discipline. This was a non-discriminatory reason.