Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited

The tribunal found no evidence that alleged perpetrators were aware of the Claimant's caste or subcaste or that any treatment was because of or related to race. All five allegations (grievance appeal, companion choice, Andrea Welstead's comment, 3 September meeting conduct, and Protectorline complaints) failed as the Claimant did not prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Treatment would have been the same for a hypothetical comparator.

The tribunal found that only one incident (Andrea Welstead's comment on 3 August 2020 saying she was offended) was unwanted conduct related to race, but it did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment. The comment was poorly chosen but made in the heat of the moment in response to the Claimant's broad allegations. It was not sufficiently serious to amount to unlawful harassment. All other allegations also failed.

The tribunal found the 20 July 2020 grievance was a protected act, but the 30 July 2020 grievance was not as it made no reference to discrimination or protected characteristics. The two alleged detriments (failure to resolve appeals and rumour-spreading) were not made out on the facts. The grievance appeal was completed, and there was no evidence of Mr Bakhshi spreading rumours. No causal link to the protected act was established.

The tribunal found the Claimant's pay including night shift premium remained the same whilst he was temporarily required by the Respondent to work days during the investigation (July-October 2020). After the Claimant returned from sick leave in February 2021, he was no longer required to work days but chose to do so for health reasons and refused to return to nights. The night shift premium was only properly payable when working nights or when required by the Respondent to work days temporarily. No unauthorised deduction occurred.