Claimant v WKCIC Group T/A Capital City College Group

The First Respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence and the implied duty to reasonably and promptly afford the Claimant an opportunity to obtain redress of his grievance. They failed to keep him informed about the progress of his grievance for five months, from mid-October 2022 until his resignation on 17 February 2023, despite his repeated requests for updates. The Claimant resigned in response to this breach and did not affirm the contract. The dismissal was unfair as there was no potentially fair reason for it.

Although Ms Odu engaged in unwanted conduct towards the Claimant on multiple occasions (shouting, ignoring him, kissing her teeth, whispering insults, making a gun gesture, and falsely accusing him of racist abuse), the tribunal found this conduct was not related to the Claimant's sex. The evidence showed Ms Odu also behaved unprofessionally towards female colleagues. Her conduct was motivated by anger at the Claimant following the incident on 21 October 2021 when a student went missing, not by his sex.

The tribunal found Ms Odu's unwanted conduct towards the Claimant was not related to his race (white). She also behaved unprofessionally towards colleagues of different races. Even the false allegation that he called her a 'black cunt' was not found to be related to the Claimant's race; it related to Ms Odu's race, not his. The tribunal held the purpose of discrimination law is to protect people with a protected characteristic, not to allow those accused of racist comments to claim harassment related to race if the allegation is not proven.

The tribunal found no evidence that Ms Odu's conduct was related to the Claimant's age (over 60s). Ms Odu was herself in her early 50s, close in age to the Claimant. The Claimant had not even been aware of her age at the time. Her conduct was motivated by anger about their deteriorating relationship, not by his age.

The tribunal found the First Respondent did not treat the Claimant less favourably because of his sex. Their failure to investigate Ms Odu's false allegation was because she declined to pursue a formal complaint, not because of the Claimant's sex. There was no evidence his sex influenced any of the First Respondent's decisions.

The tribunal found the First Respondent did not treat the Claimant less favourably because of his race. Their decision not to investigate Ms Odu's allegation was solely because she declined to pursue it formally, not because the Claimant was white. There were no facts from which the tribunal could infer unlawful discrimination.

The tribunal found no evidence the Claimant's age influenced how the First Respondent handled the situation. The failure to investigate Ms Odu's allegation was because she declined to pursue it, not because of the Claimant's age. The tribunal saw no facts suggesting a hypothetical younger comparator would have been treated differently.

The Claimant's protected act was his formal grievance on 14 September 2022. However, the tribunal found the alleged detriments (failure to provide evidence, failure to investigate, failure to take disciplinary action against Ms Odu) either occurred before the protected act or were not because of it. The First Respondent's decisions were based on Ms Odu declining to formally pursue her allegation, not on the Claimant having raised a grievance.

During the hearing, the First Respondent's HR witness explained the Claimant had been paid correctly for 5.6 weeks of holiday per year in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel. The Claimant accepted this evidence and withdrew his claim for unpaid holiday pay.