Claimant v Newday Cards Limited

The tribunal found that Ms Allison did not ask a colleague to spy on the claimant's finish time in May 2023; the claimant's finish times were visible to all via Teams chat. The tribunal concluded there was no detriment and no less favourable treatment. The evidence showed Ms Allison discussed working patterns with management colleagues, but this was normal management oversight, not targeted discrimination.

The tribunal found no less favourable treatment regarding the claimant's flexible working request and lunch breaks. The claimant, like his colleague Ms Marshall, was required to formalise non-core hours through a flexible working arrangement and work until 5:30pm on core days. The tribunal found no basis to conclude that a non-Pakistani colleague would have been allowed to change core hours by forgoing breaks.

The tribunal found that the 'poor' performance rating was not determined by Ms Allison (who had rated him 'good') but by Ms Sumner and senior colleagues during calibration. The rating was based on poor feedback from senior leaders about the claimant's performance and insufficient documentation. Race played no part in the decision by multiple senior colleagues involved in the calibration process.

While Ms Allison did berate the claimant about his working patterns on 2 February 2024 after he was two minutes late, the tribunal found this was unreasonable but not race discrimination. The tribunal concluded that Ms Allison would have reacted the same way to a non-Pakistani colleague in similar circumstances, given her frustration with the claimant's precise operation of his hours and her perception of unfairness in 'give and take'.

Regarding the refusal of the 30-minute holiday request on 21 February 2024, the tribunal found that Ms Allison's frustration, not race, was the reason for the refusal. The request came shortly after Ms Allison had instructed the claimant to work core hours and appeared to undermine that instruction. The tribunal concluded race played no part in the refusal.

The tribunal found no detriment in Ms Allison not conducting care calls during the claimant's sickness absence from March to August 2024, as there was a grievance against her and the claimant had expressed a wish that she not attend meetings with him due to anxiety. The tribunal concluded these were not facts from which less favourable treatment materially influenced by race could be inferred.

The tribunal found that Ms Sumner failed to make regular welfare contact with the claimant during his sickness absence after he raised his grievance on 21 February 2024 and appeal on 25 April 2024 (both protected acts). The tribunal inferred that Ms Sumner was frustrated by the grievance and did not wish to extend pastoral care to the claimant because of it. This was victimisation, as the failure to follow absence policy was because of the protected acts.