Claimant v CGI IT UK Ltd

Tribunal found no facts from which discrimination could be inferred across all allegations. The claimant understood his pay rate and had agreed to it. The respondent genuinely believed pay corrections were for a genuine payroll error. Disciplinary proceedings initiated due to genuine belief of security breaches. No evidence respondent took longer to investigate claimant's grievances. Mr Newton was not the subject of the grievance he heard. AWOL recording occurred because claimant had not informed line manager or HR. Several allegations were also out of time.

Tribunal found that the conduct complained of (emails about dishwashing and partition doors, commencement of disciplinary proceedings) was unrelated to the claimant's race. The requests were reasonable management instructions made to all staff or justified by circumstances. The conduct did not have the purpose of creating, and could not reasonably have created, an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Several allegations were also out of time.

Tribunal found that the grievance of 13 September 2020 was not a protected act as it contained no reference to discrimination. The grievance of 19 September 2020 was a protected act. However, the AWOL recording occurred because claimant had not properly notified absence, not because of the protected act. The respondent did not withhold CCTV evidence because of the protected act — no CCTV had been considered in the investigation and claimant had not requested it at the time.

Tribunal found the alleged qualifying disclosures were not protected disclosures. The October 2019 email about pay simply asked for clarification and contained no information tending to show a breach under s.43B ERA 1996. The February 2020 email about the dishwasher simply requested repair and did not disclose information tending to show health and safety had been endangered. The claimant could not reasonably have believed these were in the public interest. The alleged detriment (threat of disciplinary action in March 2020) did not occur and was unconnected to the alleged disclosures. The claim was also over six months out of time with no reasonable practicability justification.