Claimant v Get Set Hire Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned not because of the alleged breaches of contract, but because she received an invitation to a disciplinary hearing on 16 April 2024. The matters complained of did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The claimant seized on Mr Hussein's use of her computer as a pretext for resignation, having not complained about it until after receiving the disciplinary invitation.

The tribunal found that Ms Cheeseman's witness statement about the spa visit was provided for legitimate investigation purposes and was not related to the claimant's race or religion. Witnesses must give full accounts when asked, even if mistaken. The insinuation about pre-marital conduct was not linked to Islam or any particular race.

The tribunal found that Ms Cheeseman's witness statement was not related to religion. Not all Muslims abstain from pre-marital sex, and many non-Muslims disapprove of it. There was nothing linking the insinuation to Islam specifically. The statement was provided for legitimate investigation purposes.

Regarding Ms Vincent holding the claimant solely responsible for failing to respond to a customer inquiry on 8 September 2023: Ms Vincent had specifically asked the claimant to check the inbox, not Ms Parpa or Mr Talbot, because the claimant was responsible for it. The discussion did not amount to unfavourable treatment and was not because of race.

Regarding Mr Nicholls' alleged joke about 'another spa day' on 7 February 2024: The tribunal found this was likely asked innocently in context of discussing staff incentives. Even if aimed at the claimant, it would have alluded to vehicle misuse rather than anything related to race or religion. The spa issue lacked necessary relation to protected characteristics.

Regarding Mr Nicholls' alleged joke about 'another spa day' on 7 February 2024: The tribunal found this was likely asked innocently and even if directed at the claimant, lacked any relation to religion. The context was a legitimate discussion about staff incentives and the spa incident itself did not relate to protected characteristics.

Regarding Mr Hussein asking the claimant to complete a return-to-work form on 26 February 2024: The claimant did not prove she was treated differently from Ms Parpa. Mr Hussein's practice may have differed from earlier line managers. He carried out the interview to ensure welfare, not because of race. Mr Hussein describes himself as a person of colour.

Regarding being labelled 'aggressive' on 26 February 2024: Mr Hussein and Mr Nicholls used this description because of how they experienced the claimant's behaviour during the meeting, not because of her race. The claimant was argumentative, defensive, and accusatory during the meeting. Ryan Goddard comparator was not appropriate as he received formal sanction whereas the claimant did not.

Regarding Mr Nicholls accusing the claimant of being rude to Lucy Cheeseman on 26 February 2024: The topic was raised because complaints had been made and bad relations needed addressing, not because of race. The claimant's behaviour had deteriorated following the pay rise refusal and training workshop complaint.

Regarding Mr Nicholls' remarks about the claimant being 'emotionally immature and sulks' on 26 February 2024: The comments did not relate to race. They were Mr Nicholls' description of behaviour problems that the meeting aimed to address.

Regarding failure to have HR present during the 26 February 2024 meeting: Mr Nicholls wished to keep the meeting informal, not because of the claimant's race. Once it deteriorated he tried to end it. The comparators (Parpa and Goddard) had formal disciplinary meetings with letters of concern, so situations were not comparable.

Regarding failure to offer first aid training on 15 April 2024: Mr Turner was willing to offer training at the proper time as evidenced by February meeting. The respondent did not need more first aiders and several existing first aiders were black. Latterly, managers foresaw employment would terminate due to relationship breakdown, not because of race.

Regarding Mr Hussein only engaging with Ms Parpa after the grievance: Mr Hussein's reluctance to deal with the claimant directly was due to her behaviour on 26 February 2024 (arguing, refusing authority, recording conversations), not because of the grievance which was not about him anyway.

Regarding Mr Hussein accessing the claimant's computer on 12 April 2024: This was done openly for an innocuous business purpose (correcting timesheet) due to technical problems with his own login. The claimant agreed there was 'no ill intent'. It was not done because of the grievance but for expediency. Not best practice but the claimant enabled it by sharing her password.

Regarding errors made on driver's timesheet using claimant's account on 12 April 2024: Mr Hussein made the error unintentionally while trying to get it right. The action was not because of the protected act but because he thought it the most expedient way to correct what he believed was an urgent issue.