Claimant v STM Group (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that Network Rail (not the respondent) removed the claimant from Paddington Station, and Network Rail employees were neither employees nor agents of the respondent. The respondent is not responsible for Network Rail's actions under vicarious liability principles. The tribunal also found that the claimant failed to prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred — there was only a single incident with no pattern of racist behaviour or anything pointing to discrimination.
The tribunal found the respondent did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent properly investigated a security breach, offered alternative work at Charing Cross, and behaved reasonably at the preliminary hearing. The claimant had in fact decided to resign and felt committed to his new employer CIS from December 2022 onwards, long before the alleged 'last straw' at the tribunal hearing in February 2023. The claimant resigned because he found new employment, not because of the respondent's conduct.
Facts
The claimant, a security guard employed on a zero-hours contract, was removed from Paddington Station by Network Rail on 1 July 2022 after allegedly failing a 'tag test' (missing an unattended bag planted by test staff). The respondent investigated and offered alternative work at Charing Cross, but the claimant declined, initially wanting to remain at Paddington. After a period of sickness and pursuing a grievance, the claimant ignored repeated offers of work from late 2022 onwards. In December 2022, the claimant began pursuing employment with CIS and started work there on 3 March 2023, resigning from the respondent on 13 March 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The race discrimination claim failed because Network Rail (not the respondent) removed the claimant, and the respondent is not vicariously liable for Network Rail's acts. The claimant also could not identify any employee of the respondent who discriminated against him. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the respondent acted reasonably throughout, the claimant affirmed the contract by taking sick pay and holiday, and the tribunal found the claimant resigned because he had secured new employment with CIS, not because of any breach by the respondent.
Practical note
Employers are not vicariously liable for discriminatory acts of third parties such as clients, and a single incident described by a claimant as discrimination, without more, is insufficient to pass the first stage of the burden of proof test in discrimination claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2208210/2022
- Decision date
- 28 April 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security guard
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep