Claimant v Anyiso SCIO
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the sole reason for dismissal was the claimant's failure to follow instructions, breach of confidentiality, and failure to follow company policy. The protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found no less favourable treatment on grounds of race. Any employee in the claimant's circumstances would have been treated in the same way. Race was in no sense whatsoever a reason for the treatment.
None of the alleged unwanted acts were found to be related to the protected characteristic of race. The tribunal found that even where conduct was established, it was not related to race and did not have the proscribed effects.
The tribunal found no detriments suffered by the claimant because of protected disclosures. The manager had not read the health and safety disclosure before deciding to dismiss, and other treatment was solely due to perceived performance failures, not the disclosures.
Withdrawn by claimant at the hearing.
Facts
The claimant, an Arabic community development officer, worked for a charity supporting ethnic minority women. Her relationship with her manager Ms Ezechi deteriorated over perceived performance issues, including failing to follow instructions, not logging donated items, and breaching confidentiality by asking service users about hot water temperature on WhatsApp. Ms Ezechi dismissed the claimant on 23 December 2024 after seven months' employment, citing inability to follow instructions, unrecorded donated items, and breach of confidentiality. The claimant had raised concerns about underpayment and health and safety issues shortly before dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant was not treated less favourably on grounds of race — any employee in similar circumstances would have been treated the same way. The manager's treatment stemmed from frustration at perceived performance failures, not race. The whistleblowing claims failed because the manager had not read the health and safety disclosure before deciding to dismiss, and other treatment was unrelated to the disclosures. The dismissal was not automatically unfair as the protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason.
Practical note
Poor management style and a deteriorating working relationship do not amount to discrimination or whistleblowing detriment unless the protected characteristic or disclosure materially influenced the treatment — subjective perception of unfairness is insufficient without objective evidence of unlawful motivation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000247/2025
- Decision date
- 2 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Anyiso SCIO
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Community Development Officer
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep