Claimant v Inverde Limited

The tribunal found that Mr Szintay never used the term 'white only chair' and that the practice of employees claiming specific chairs in the mess room was not related to race. The respondent established that the practice applied to all new employees regardless of race.

The tribunal found that Mr Szintay's comment about the claimant's food being 'smelly' was rude and insensitive but not because of race. The explanation was that Mr Szintay genuinely disliked the smell of the food and made his feelings plain, albeit insensitively.

The tribunal found that Mr Szintay's report that the claimant had been drinking was not knowingly false. Mr Szintay genuinely believed he had seen the claimant drinking a can of beer. The negative breath test was inconclusive as alcohol may have metabolised by the time of testing.

The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to take a breath test was in accordance with the respondent's alcohol policy following a credible report of drinking. The policy was explained to the claimant and there was no evidence the treatment was because of race.

The tribunal found that Mr Chudasama never suggested the claimant had cheated the alcohol test. The outcome letter simply assessed the evidence and noted it was possible Mr Szintay genuinely believed the claimant had been drinking at 12pm but alcohol would not remain in the system five hours later.

The tribunal found the claimant was moved to St Luke's Park to separate him from Mr Szintay following their breakdown in relationship. This was a pragmatic operational decision. The role was not redundant and the claimant did not complain about the move, which suited his commute.

The tribunal found that Mr Pickup failed the claimant's probation because of genuine performance concerns including inappropriate emails, undermining management instructions, leaving work without authorisation, PPE failures, and time-wasting. The claimant was given an opportunity to improve in December but failed to do so.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude the probation failure was because of the claimant's age. The explanation was based on genuine performance concerns and applied regardless of age.

The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove that the respondent's managers fabricated notices of conversation. All notes genuinely reflected conversations that took place. The claimant failed to identify which specific notes were allegedly false.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude the notices of conversation were fabricated because of age. The explanation was that they accurately reflected conversations that occurred.

The tribunal found the respondent's explanation was clear: full witness statements were not provided during the grievance process due to confidentiality and GDPR concerns, which was the respondent's standard policy. There was no evidence this was because of race.

The tribunal found this allegation failed because Mr Garthwaite did not accept that the 'white only' comment had been made, as the claimant had never alleged this to Mr Garthwaite. Further, Mr Garthwaite expressly referred to the colleague Tyler as mixed race, not white.

The tribunal found Mr Garthwaite reasonably concluded that Mr Szintay genuinely believed the claimant had been drinking. This was a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, and explained why Mr Garthwaite did not conclude the allegation was because of race.

The tribunal found Mr Garthwaite concluded the 'smelly food' comment was rude and inappropriate (partly upholding the grievance and leading to dignity training for Mr Szintay), but there was insufficient evidence to conclude it was because of race. The comment reflected Mr Szintay's perception of the food's aroma.

The dismissal was a consequence of failing the probationary period due to genuine performance concerns. The tribunal found the explanation was established and the dismissal was not because of race or age.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude the dismissal was because of the claimant's age. The explanation was based on genuine performance concerns during the probationary period.

The tribunal found that asking the claimant not to sit in a claimed chair was unwelcome but not related to race. It related to the accepted practice at the time of employees claiming specific chairs. The tribunal found it was not the intention to harass and it was not reasonable for it to have that effect.

The tribunal found the 'smelly food' comment was transitory and brief, showing insensitivity but not demonstrating an intention to harass. It could not reasonably be said to have had the effect of harassment and was not related to race.

The tribunal found this was not harassment because the complaint was not false. Mr Szintay genuinely believed the claimant had been drinking and it did not relate to race.

The tribunal found requiring a breath test was not harassment by purpose or effect. The claimant was asked to take the test in accordance with policy following a credible report of drinking, not because of race.

The tribunal found this allegation failed because the claimant was not accused of cheating the alcohol breath test.

The tribunal found the move to another park was not unwelcome (the claimant did not object and it suited his commute), was not intended to harass, and could not reasonably be said to have that effect. It did not relate to race but was intended to manage a difficult situation.

The tribunal found no facts to conclude the intent was to harass when failing the probation. The claimant was given an opportunity to improve in December. Given his failure to improve, it could not reasonably be said the dismissal had the effect of harassment and did not relate to race.

The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish that conversations had not taken place. There was no basis to conclude it was intent to harass or had the effect of harassment. The notices of conversation did not relate to race.

The tribunal found no facts to conclude the intent was to harass by not providing statements. It would not be reasonable for it to have the effect of harassment and it did not relate to race.

The tribunal found the treatment was not established as Mr Garthwaite did not accept the 'white only' comment was made (it was never raised with him) and he did not state the colleague was white. There was no basis for finding intent to harass or that effect, and no connection to race.

The tribunal found Mr Garthwaite had proper evidence on which to base his findings about the drinking allegation. There were no facts to conclude his intent was to harass, it would not be reasonable for the decision to have the effect of harassment, and it did not relate to race.

The tribunal found the evidence before Mr Garthwaite did not support a finding that the 'smelly food' comment related to race. There were no facts to find intent to harass, it was not reasonable for the failure to have the effect of harassment, and it did not relate to race.

The tribunal found that in each case where the alleged treatment occurred, the respondent established an explanation that was not in any sense whatsoever because of the protected act (the grievance of 9 July 2022). The explanations provided for direct discrimination equally answered the victimisation claims.