Claimant v Faith in Nature Limited

Allegation 5.3.6 (29 July 2022 incident with Mr Borkowski shouting at claimant) was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing after he confirmed he was not alleging this was because of race.

Allegation 4.1.6 (29 July 2022 incident with Mr Borkowski) was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing after he confirmed he was not alleging this was race-related harassment.

Allegation 5.3.7 (dismissal as act of direct race discrimination) was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing.

Multiple allegations relating to treatment by Dwayne Manning and Kim Shawcross. The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove facts from which it could conclude discrimination occurred. The respondent demonstrated that Manning took equipment from colleagues generally, not just the claimant. Shawcross's refusal to move pallets was a response to the claimant calling her a 'moron' and 'bully', not his race. The claimant did not suggest treatment was race-related until bringing his tribunal claim.

The tribunal accepted some conduct was unwanted but found it was not race-related. Manning's behaviour (taking equipment, removing pallet, shouting) occurred with white colleagues too and was part of his general conduct. Even where conduct was unwanted, the tribunal found it was not reasonable for it to have the harassing effect required under s.26 Equality Act, as the conduct did not meet the threshold of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The tribunal found the respondent did not believe the claimant might do a protected act. The claimant's reference to speaking to the owner (Rivka Rose) was made after the dismissal decision had been announced and there was nothing to suggest he intended to raise race discrimination allegations with her. The victimisation claim therefore failed because the respondent did not believe the claimant might do a protected act.

The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (shouting at supervisor Mr Borkowski), had reasonable grounds for that belief based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the claimant did shout at Mr Borkowski on 29 July 2022 after being asked not to move pallets on the computer system without authority. The respondent followed a reasonably fair procedure including investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal.

The claimant alleged a £250 deduction from his June 2021 pay was unauthorised. The tribunal found this reflected an advance payment of £250 made to the claimant on 3 June 2021. There was therefore no actual deduction from wages. The complaint failed on merits. The tribunal also found it would have failed on time limits as it was brought over a year late, it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time, and it was not brought within a reasonable further period.

The claimant's breach of contract claim related to the same £250 alleged deduction in June 2021. The tribunal found there was no failure to pay wages as the £250 shown as a deduction on the payslip reflected an advance payment made to the claimant on 3 June 2021. There was therefore no breach of contract.