Claimant v A1 Jobs Limited

The tribunal found the claimant was assigned to work outside because he arrived late on two occasions and other tasks had already been allocated, not because of his race. Around a third of the workforce worked outside at any given time. The treatment was not less favourable and was not because of race.

The tribunal accepted that a manager may have referred to agency workers supplied by the First Respondent as 'unskilled', but found this comment was directed at all agency workers (who lacked training in picking and packing), not solely at black workers as the claimant asserted. The conduct was therefore not related to race.

The tribunal concluded the claimant's email of 19 December 2023 did not constitute a protected act because he made no assertions of Equality Act contraventions and no reference to race whatsoever. Without a protected act, victimisation could not succeed.

The tribunal found the First Respondent decided not to offer further work before the protected disclosure was made (at 9:25am via voicemail, before the 10:27am email). The protected disclosure could not have influenced the decision as it had not yet been made at the time of the detriment.

The tribunal found the decision to dismiss/cease offering work was made at around 9:25am on 19 December 2023, before the protected disclosure email at 10:27am. The protected disclosure could not have been the reason or principal reason for dismissal as it had not yet been made.