Claimant v Travelodge Hotels Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because no reasonable employer would have relied upon the investigation as conducted. The investigation was inadequate: MM's encouragement of witness VK crossed the line of impartiality, the grievance investigation into MM's conduct was insufficient and did not interview a key witness (VK), the claimant's defence that he was working contracted hours from home was not investigated, and no reasonable employer would have rejected the claimant's account of apologising to Angie without re-interviewing Angie and Valerie. The overall investigation was outside the range of reasonable responses.

Withdrawn by claimant on Day 4 of the hearing

The claimant alleged associative disability discrimination (his son was disabled and autistic). The tribunal found MM did not refuse to meet the claimant about his work pattern — she postponed his appraisal because a complaint had just been made. She never refused to meet him; no meeting took place for non-discriminatory reasons (the disciplinary investigation and then his grievance). The claimant did not show facts from which disability discrimination could be inferred. Even if he had, the respondent proved non-discriminatory reasons.

Various acts alleged. The tribunal found that MM received a proper briefing from the previous District Manager (illness prevented a joint visit, not sex). The claimant did not show MM made 'difficult customer' comments or that her actions were influenced by sex. Comparators were not in materially similar situations: Elena was not suspended because there was no corroborating evidence against her, unlike the claimant. MM's conduct on 16 February (telling VK the claimant would not remain) was ill-advised but her explanation — reassuring a nervous witness in a fast-moving investigation — was non-discriminatory. Other allegations (access revoked on suspension, bonus paused, scope of investigation) all had non-discriminatory explanations. No sex discrimination shown.

The claimant alleged less favourable treatment on grounds of age in various respects. The tribunal found no facts from which age discrimination could be inferred. No comparator evidence supported the claim. All acts alleged had non-discriminatory explanations and the claimant failed to show any link between the alleged treatment and his age.

The claimant (of Arab origin) alleged race discrimination in the same acts as the sex and age claims. The tribunal found no basis to infer race discrimination. The 'difficult customer' comment allegation was rejected. MM's actions on 16 February, though crossing a line of impartiality, were explained by the investigation context, not race. The claimant had not shown facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, and in any event the respondent proved non-discriminatory reasons for all acts found to have occurred.

The claimant alleged detriment on grounds of dependants leave (s.57A ERA). The tribunal found he did not take dependants leave as defined by statute — his working pattern was a long-term flexible arrangement, not emergency time off to provide assistance when a dependant fell ill or care arrangements broke down. His claim failed because he had not shown he took such leave. The alleged detriments (appraisal cancellation, failure to discuss working pattern) had non-discriminatory explanations. The complaint was also manifestly out of time under s.57B ERA.