Claimant v London General Transport Services Limited

The tribunal found Mr Sutherland was unfairly dismissed due to significant procedural flaws. While the respondent had reasonable grounds for belief in gross misconduct based on the altercation with Mr Stone, there were insurmountable procedural defects: the investigation failed to consider Mr Stone's insubordinate conduct, the disciplinary officer failed to properly consider evidence and mitigating factors, and the appeal panel was not impartial as members had been involved in previous contentious matters with the claimant. These cumulative failings rendered the dismissal fundamentally procedurally unfair despite the conduct potentially warranting dismissal.

The tribunal found insufficient facts from which less favourable treatment because of race could be inferred. While Mr Sutherland perceived racial bias, he did not produce reliable evidence demonstrating that the language used by Stone, the investigation, the disciplinary hearing conduct, the appeal process, or his dismissal were influenced by race. The respondent provided race-neutral explanations for the treatment. The tribunal concluded there was no factual basis to infer his dismissal resulted from racial discrimination.

Although the tribunal accepted Mr Sutherland made protected acts by submitting grievances alleging race discrimination and victimisation, there was insufficient evidence to causatively link these to any subsequent detriments. The principal reason for dismissal was gross misconduct during the incident with Mr Stone rather than any protected act. While relevant managers were likely aware of his prior grievances, no facts suggested their decisions were influenced or motivated by this awareness.