Claimant v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew the victimisation complaint at the start of the hearing. It was dismissed upon withdrawal by consent.
The tribunal found that the respondent's actions (instructing removal of Yammer posts, investigating grievances, refusing reinstatement) were not because of the claimant's protected philosophical beliefs about race. The respondent was responding to genuine complaints from four colleagues who were upset by the posts, and was balancing the rights of all employees. A hypothetical comparator who made offensive posts unrelated to a protected belief would have been treated the same way. The respondent's actions were a proportionate means of protecting the rights of others and avoiding workplace disruption, not discrimination.
The tribunal found that the conduct complained of (notifying claimant of complaints, requiring removal of posts, conducting grievance investigation, suggesting mediation) was not related to the claimant's protected beliefs. The respondent was following proper grievance procedures in response to a formal collective grievance raised by four employees. The actions were connected to the grievance process and the need to balance competing rights, not to the claimant's philosophical beliefs themselves. The tribunal applied the principles in Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen and found no connection on the facts between the protected characteristic and the respondent's conduct.
Facts
The claimant, an ACAS conciliator, made eight posts on the respondent's internal Yammer intranet between June 2021 expressing his philosophical beliefs about race, which challenge Critical Race Theory and favour a Martin Luther King approach emphasising character over race. Four colleagues, who were Black and supported a CRT approach, raised a collective grievance alleging the posts were racist, discriminatory and created a hostile environment. The respondent instructed the claimant to remove the posts temporarily whilst investigating the grievance. The grievance was not upheld, but after appeal the respondent decided the posts should not be reinstated to avoid further workplace disruption. The claimant subsequently spoke to the media about the situation and received a final written warning following a disciplinary process (though allegations relating to this were withdrawn).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The victimisation claim was withdrawn. The remaining claims were presented out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. On the merits, the direct discrimination and harassment claims failed. The tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not because of or related to the claimant's protected philosophical beliefs, but were a proportionate response to genuine complaints from colleagues and an attempt to balance competing rights and avoid workplace disruption. The tribunal found the claimant's beliefs on race to be protected, but not his views on feminism. A hypothetical comparator who made offensive posts unrelated to protected beliefs would have been treated the same way.
Practical note
Employers can legitimately restrict employee expression of protected beliefs on internal platforms where posts genuinely offend colleagues and cause workplace disruption, provided the restriction is proportionate, respects proper grievance procedures, and the employer is balancing competing rights rather than targeting the beliefs themselves.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1805305/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Individual Conciliator / Good Practice Services Trainer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister