Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsIn person for claimantMr J R Raison (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 20 July 2025
JUDGMENT
The claims are dismissed
REASONS
[1]The ET1 was presented on 18/4/2024, initially for race discrimination and “other payments” only. A Case Management Preliminary Hearing (CMPH) was held on 17/9/24 at which the Claimant was permitted to expand his claim by adding additional averments in relation to incidents which had occurred since the ET1 was presented, and also to claim age discrimination in the alternative to race discrimination in relation to all the averments.[2]The claims were then formulated as being for age and race direct discrimination and harassment related to age and or race, and unauthorised deduction from wages (for 4 days pay allegedly due in December 2023).[3]The main theme in the case is the bad relationship between the Claimant (who describes his race/nationality as “White Turkish Kurd”, and who was 59 years of age during the relevant period), and a Shift Manager Mr Kwame Boasiakoh (“KB”) a black man born in Ghana, who is much younger than the Claimant.[4]The poor relationship seems to have begun soon after the Claimant’s employment with the Respondent started in 2022, and worsened after a manager called Gordon left his employment with the Respondent on 4/12/2023, and it is ongoing.[5]The Claimant claims that KB is an unfair manager, who abuses his authority so as to favour some and disadvantage others, for example by reporting officers he dislikes for minor infractions while condoning his favourites when they do the same, assigning his favourites to popular work stations, and assigning those he dislikes to unpopular stations, allowing some people to go home early but not others etc.[6]In his witness statement the Claimant suggested that he had suffered victimisation following the making of an alleged protected act (an oral complaint in July 2022 about an alleged ageist comment from KB). This claim and the claimed oral complaint were not referred to in the ET1 and are not referred to in the Case Management Summary following the CMPH in September 2024 at which the list of claims and issues for trial were finalised. I decided that it would be unfair on the Respondent to allow the Claimant to further amend to include a victimisation claim, especially given the fact that the protected act was alleged to have occurred three years ago, and to have been made orally, an act which both the Respondent’s witnesses denied, and for which there is no contemporary or subsequent documentary evidence. Hence the issues in the case remained limited to those identified at the CMPH.[7]I was referred to a bundle of 454 pages and one further document namely a written grievance appeal outcome which had already been sent to the Claimant on 28/10/24. I did not permit the Respondent to adduce other late documentation. The Respondent produced lengthy final written submissions and a version machine-translated into Turkish for the Claimant’s benefit, following which I adjourned for 19 hours to allow the Claimant time to prepare to make his final submissions, which he then did through the Interpreter for about 1 hour.[8]The Claimant gave evidence and conducted his case partly in English but mainly in Turkish with the assistance of the interpreter. He was adamant and emphatic in his assertion that he has suffered systematic mistreatment from KB over a prolonged period. He gave his evidence and conducted cross-examination in a rambling and often incoherent manner, and what he said was in some instances contradicted by contemporary documents. To some extent at least, I think this was attributable to the fact that English is not his first language and communication was not easy.[9]The Claimant called Paul Miller as a witness. Mr Miller is an ex-employee of the Respondent who previously worked as a security officer under KB’s supervision until about December 2023. He described himself as a black man of mixed heritage, and aged 63 years. I found him to be a convincing witness. His witness statement turned out to be a document he had produced for a whistleblowing compliant he had submitted in 2024 to a third party, about work conditions while he had been employed by the Respondent. He had sent the document to the Claimant to use as a witness statement for his Tribunal case on 6/7/2025, It includes the following: “NEPOTISM/BULLYING: One particular shift manager (Kwame) is an appalling bully and runs the operation with a shocking abusive behaviour and incompetence. He presides over a culture of abusive and degrading behaviour to staff which is not carried on by all managers but is definitely covered up by them. There are currently 6+ CURRENT grievance cases against him. Mitie has consistently decided there are no issues regarding his performance or behaviour. The outcome of all the previous cases has been , 'if you don't like it you can choose to leave'. Check the staff turnover, it is surprising! His abusive and at times threatening manner and behaviour affects the operation of the contract and the mental and physical safety of staff and in my case a member of the public…”[10]Under cross-examination Mr Miller agreed that he had not personally witnessed any of the specific alleged acts or omissions relied on by the Claimant in this case, and that he was expressing his personal views. His main grievance against KB was about a matter (KB’s alleged response when a member of the public found in the street required ambulance assistance) completely unrelated to the Claimant in this case.[11]In answer to questions from me, Mr Miller said that the Respondent’s work force at HM Treasury was “an international bunch including Asians Latinos Nepalese etc”. He had seen KB arguing with other black managers and behaving badly to persons of various nationalities and from various backgrounds and ages, “without discriminating between them” (ie not focusing on any particular race or age group).[12]I read an undated statement from Mr D Onyeadiri who I was told is a black man aged between 50 and 60 years who works or worked as a colleague of the Claimant’s under KB’s supervision. His statement complains in general terms about mismanagement in the Control Room and in the “LG18” which is a reference to the Mitie Security management team on site. This criticism was aimed at a number of persons, and not only KB, but he objected in particular to KB using CCTV cameras to “monitor the security team on the floor”.[13]I read a statement in the form of an email dated 22/5/2024 from Stefan Albu, who I was told is a white Romanian aged in his early to mid 40s. His email included the following “Specifically, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the operational manager's disrespectful and unprofessional behaviour towards me. Despite our clear instructions to report any such observations, no action has been taken so far. This is a stark departure from my previous eight years of experience in the security field, where workplace issues were promptly addressed”. Mr Albu did not refer to KB by name, but it is likely that it is KB whom he was referring to.[14]I read a statement in the form of an email from Dembo Touray dated 13/5/24 which referred to “disgusting issues going on at HM Treasury… the culture in there is absolutely disgusting, we're all meant to work as one unit but unfortunately that's not the case…There's always a lot of favouritism and unfair treatments, any time you raise an issue with the management they always seem to brush it underneath the carpet…”. Mr Touray did not refer to KB by name, but it is likely that KB is amongst the persons he is criticising for favouritism and unfairness.[15]Messrs Onyeadiri, Albu and Touray did not appear to give oral evidence and I give their written statements reduced weight accordingly.[16]Mr Carl Patten (a Deputy Security Manager) and KB gave evidence for the Respondent.[17]The Claimant himself acknowledged Mr Patten as a person acting in good faith. I found Mr Patten to be a reliable witness. He said that the first time that the Claimant has referred to age or race discrimination is in these proceedings - the Claimant had never done so at work, despite the fact that he had raised grievances about KB.[18]KB gave evidence, the gist of which was that he has just done his job in an impartial manner and he does not have any particular animus against the Claimant and as far as he is concerned, there is no problem. He often resorted to simple denials and was unable to offer any reason for any poor relationship between him and KB, or even to acknowledge that the relationship is poor. I have some reservations about his evidence and his conduct at work because it is obvious that some security officers and ex-security officers at least from different backgrounds as well as the Claimant, are adamant that KB has acted unfairly and in a biased fashion towards them, but KB did not engage with this or offer any real explanation to me why these officers should feel like this, if it was not true.[19]Both the Respondent’s witnesses gave their evidence in a calm and considered manner and what they said was more consistent with the contemporary documents than the Claimant’s evidence. On the whole, and particularly where Mr Patten was able to give direct evidence about a matter, or there is support from contemporary documents, I prefer their evidence to that of the Claimant where there is a disagreement over the facts. A summary of relevant law[20]Section 4 Equality Act 2010 (EA) provides that race and age are protected characteristic. Direct Discrimination[21]Section 13 EA provides that a person discriminates against another if because of a protected characteristic, he treats another less favourably than he treats or would treat others, unless, in the case of age, he shows the treatment to be “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Harassment[22]Section 26 provides that a person harasses another where the harasser engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating the others dignity or creating an intimidating hostile degrading humiliating or offensive environment for him. In deciding whether conduct has this effect the following must be taken into account : the perception of the other, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for conduct to have that effect. Onus of proof[23]Section 136 provides that it there are facts from which a court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that a person has contravened a provision under the EA, the court must hold that the contravention occurred, unless the person shows that he did not contravene the provision.
Findings of fact
[24]The Claimant has been working for the Respondent as Corporate Security Officer from 20/6/2022 and he continues to be employed by the Respondent in that capacity, working at a building occupied by HM Treasury in London.[25]As referred to above, in his witness statement the Claimant alleged inter alia “June 2022 : At the start of my first shift at HM Treasury my Shift Manager, Kwame Boasiakoh, made discriminatory remarks to me. Kwame said: I was too old for the job; he didn't understand how they offered me the job. I ignored what he said, and reported the statements verbally to Deputy security manager Carl Patten but no investigation or action was taken by him…’[26]In his oral evidence the Claimant went on to say that subsequently KB frequently referred to him as “old man”.[27]This is the key point in this case because if I found these allegations to be true, notwithstanding the fact that I have not allowed the victimisation claim, it would pass the burden of proof to the Respondent to show that no ageism at all affected all the things which the Claimant relies on as direct age discrimination, which in and of themselves show no apparent connection to the Claimant’s age.[28]I find that these allegations about ageist comments are not proved because(i) they are denied by KB(ii) Mr C Patten (who the Claimant accepted was an honest witness), denied that any such report about them was made to him(iii) they are not referred to by any of the Claimant’s witnesses(iv) when the Claimant issued his ET1 in April 2024 he did not claim age discrimination, which claim appears to have been added as an afterthought in September 2024, at which point(v) even then the Claimant made no mention of these allegations to the ET judge; and(vi) there is no evidence that the Claimant ever mentioned these allegations to anyone before his witness statement served in 2025, some three years later.[29]I now record my findings about the specific allegations (set out in bold italics) relied on as direct race/age discrimination and harassment: On 4 December 2023 KB changed the Claimant’s shift[30]KB was on holiday on 4/12/23 and cannot therefore have changed the Claimant’s shift. The shift was in fact changed by Mr Feggans. On 19 March 2024, KB again changed the Claimant’s shift[31]The Claimant’s shift was changed by KB because of an operational need to pull some available officer back to cover a sickness absence as shown by a rota document on which a note had been superimposed stating “KB: 18/3/24 Tasyurdu (the Claimant) moved back from Rec training to the floor to help operations as Oladego blow-out”.[32]The note does not eliminate the possibility that the Claimant was selected by KB to be pulled back in circumstances in which another officer could have been chosen for this unpopular change. On 26 and 28 March 2024 KB did not allow the Claimant to change his shifts but did allow a French employee to change his shift[33]On 26/3/2024 KB did not allow the Claimant to share the (favoured) Clive Steps post and allowed another officer (assigned that day to position number 12) to share it. When the Claimant raised a grievance about this Mr Patten concluded that “KB had made his own exceptions in an aim to support a specific number on site as opposed to specific personnel”. The rationale was that position 12 was seen as a less favoured position.[34]On 28/3/24 KB allowed 3 security officers to share the “fast stream position”. Again Mr Patten on investigating, found that this had occurred pursuant to an informal and unofficial practice of KB, which was not being followed by other managers.[35]Mr Patten exonerated KB and dismissed the Claimant’s complaints about these matters. As already stated, I found Mr Patten to be a reliable witness and in this case accept that that he was doing his best to investigate properly. However, to some extent his conclusions support the Claimant’s case that KB was in the habit of applying his own informal practices not followed by other managers. The important point however is that Mr Patten found that KB was applying a practice to compensate or mitigate work at certain work site locations rather than to favour or disfavour particular individuals. On 7 June 2024, KB asked the Claimant why he had left his security position during his shift without authorisation and the Claimant was then given a final written warning about this[36]The Claimant at the misconduct hearing agreed that he had left his post briefly, having asked a colleague to cover him for a minute so he could go to wash his hands. He did not deny that this was against the rules. However, he stated then, as he stated at the tribunal that “its not only me taking those quick WC breaks, other officers are doing this as well, unfortunately on this occasion shift manager (ie KB) caught me purposely.”[37]KB’s evidence about this was that “the Claimant had left his post the previous week and this had been observed by the Account Manager. When he left his post again without authorisation on 7 June 2024 I asked why he had done this and the Claimant refused to engage with me and told me to refer the concern to management which I did.” He also stated that leaving a post was a serious matter which he did not condone in anyone.[38]The Claimant did not identify any specific instances of KB condoning other officers leaving their posts.[39]I prefer KB’s version of events - he was doing his job and reported the Claimant because the Claimant was arguing and refusing to engage when KB tried to deal with the situation without escalating it. The Claimant alleges that KB prevented him from attending a scheduled first aid training course on 10 June 2024, required him to work instead, and shouted at him. He claims that only after Carl Patten became involved was he permitted to attend.[40]The Claimant’s evidence was “ I attended a first aid training course on 10 June 2024 where I was subjected to more sarcastic behaviour from Kwame Boasakoh. When I tried to discuss this unnecessary behaviour with Kwame Boasakoh, Carl Patten who was present, dismissed my concerns by saying no one else had complained about Kwame Boasiakoh.”[41]KBs evidence about this was a denial.[42]Mr Patten’s evidence about this was as follows: “I received a formal email from a colleague of the Claimant complaining about the Claimant’s previous conduct on a first aid course. An investigation was held by the Claimant’s line manager with respect to the complaints made. I cannot locate any emails whereby I was involved in the Claimant raising concerns about Kwame in this instance of allegedly not being permitted to attend another first aid course. Within the Tribunal Bundle I can see a statement made by the Claimant relating to events on the 10 June 2024, I can categorically state I was not present in any discussion with Kwame and the Claimant surrounding this”[43]The Claimant ultimately did attend the course so at least finally he was not prevented.[44]In the light of Mr Patten’s evidence on the subject I do not find the allegation proved On 28 June 2024 KB yelled, fought and spat at the Claimant[45]It is admitted by KB that he did raise his voice at the Claimant on 28 June 2024 when the Claimant argued with him about whether jackets should be worn or not. The Claimant also shouted at KB. This was an angry altercation during which some of KB’s saliva may have landed on the Claimant, by accident. There was no fighting or violence. The Claimant substantially contributed to this altercation by challenging and arguing with KB over an instruction which the latter was entitled to give.[46]As KB had been in the senior position, on 9 July 2024 a more senior manager gave him a letter of concern about his conduct on that occasion and referred him for leadership and communication training. On 30 July 2024 KB used copies of CCTV footage against the Claimant[47]The allegation concerns an incident on 30 July 2024, when the Claimant, while stationed at the main entrance, allowed a member of the public into the building to use the toilet, in breach of site protocol. The individual did not have a pass and should not have been admitted without proper clearance.[48]KBs evidence about this was as follows “I was instructed by a senior manager to investigate a potential security breach involving a member of the public entering the building. I reviewed the CCTV and the rota and the officer on duty was identified as the Claimant. I asked the Claimant about this incident in the presence of a CCTV operator. Initially the Claimant denied involvement but after further discussion the Claimant confirmed he had let a member of public into the building. I submitted a report as requested and had no further involvement in this matter” . I accept that account.[49]However, the Claimant’s complaint here appears to be not that KB questioned and ultimately reported him for letting in a member of the public, but rather that KB had taken a photo of CCTV footage in order to show it to the Claimant, which was a breach of the policy relating to the use of CCTV. KB initially in his witness statement stated “I did show the Claimant CCTV footage of himself, this was entirely appropriate so that the Claimant could see relevant evidence” but when starting to give his oral evidence retracted that admission.[50]Seeing that KB initially admitted it, and as I do not think that the Claimant would have made it up, I find that KB did take a photo of the CCTV footage but did so simply to provide evidence to the Claimant who was initially unwilling to admit what he had done. On 28 August 2024 KB took the Claimant’s locker from him.[51]On 2/9/24 the Claimant sent an email complaining as follows: “Since I work in Treasury, I used a small locker number 10 for my back (sic) put in, whilst I was on holiday Kwame took my locker and used by master key in Control Room, please can I have my locker back thank you”[52]The Claimant stated in oral evidence that he found KB’s possessions in the locker. There is no record of him having said that specifically before, but his email of 2/9 is at least consistent with this.[53]KB evidence was “I did not take any inappropriate or discriminatory action regarding the Claimant’s locker. All lockers are issued with individual keys so that an employee can store their personal belongings whilst on duty. I have had no involvement in allocation of the Claimant’s locker.”[54]The locker in question, locker 10, was never assigned to the Claimant and had no key of its own. Lockers are issued by the Pass Office, and an officer officially “owns” a locker only if issued a key and listed on the registry. The Claimant held keys to two other lockers, numbers 32 and 153 and did not have a key to locker 10, but that is not the point. He was using locker 10 informally and claims that in his absence KB took it over and put his things in it.[55]On balance I find that KB during the Claimant’s absence did put some of his possessions in locker 10 which was empty at that point and not officially assigned to anyone but which the Claimant had previously been in the habit of using. It is not shown that KB when using it, knew it had previously been used by the Claimant or that this use of the locker by KB was deliberate targeting of the Claimant. On 5 September 2024 KB complained to the team that the Claimant had left his post whilst on shift[56]KB’s evidence about this was “I did raise a concern that the Claimant had left his post on 5 September 2024 – part of my job is to ensure appropriate security officers are on post and it was entirely appropriate for me to raise this concern. My raising this concern had nothing to do with the Claimant’s age or race. On 5 September 2024 I conducted a routine post check which is part of my role and found that the Claimant was absent from his post. I asked the Claimant about this and he refused to speak to me. I therefore reported my concern to the Claimant’s manager. The Claimant then requested a meeting which I facilitated with an operator with me as a witness. After that meeting, I withdrew my report as the matter had been resolved.’[57]I find that the Claimant had left his post and that KB’s account, which the Claimant did not really dispute, is accurate. KB generally tried to terminate the Claimant’s employment[58]The Claimant agreed that KB himself did not have authority to dismiss him but said “ I have seen him try to create evidence” (against the Claimant…upon the basis of which the Claimant could be dismissed).[59]KBs evidence about this was “I have never tried to get the Claimant sacked I simply wanted him to carry out his role to the correct standards to ensure that we could meet the needs of our client. I have reported concerns regarding the Claimant on two occasions and at the Claimant’s own request. I strive to treat all security officers equally and resolve issues rather than choosing to formally escalate issues.”[60]There were four workplace incidents involving the Claimant between May and September 2024:a.22 May 2024: C used mobile phone on duty. Complaint made by Mr Dave Shepard; investigated by Mr Kaczmarkiewicz; final written warning issued by Mr Heywood following disciplinary hearing on 3/7/2024.b.7 June 2024: C left post to wash hands without permission. Complaint made by KB. Conduct admitted. Investigated by Mr Kaczmarkiewicz; final written warning issued by Mr Heywood following disciplinary hearing on 3/7/2024.c.30 July 2024: C let a member of the public into the building to use the toilet, in breach of security. Complaint made by HM Treasury; investigation assigned to KB; Claimant admitted the conduct; no further action taken.d.5 September 2024: C left post. Complaint raised by KB; later withdrawn after Claimant admitted fault[61]Only two of the four complaints were made by KB, and both concerned conduct which the Claimant admitted.[62]If KB had wanted to get the Claimant dismissed, then I doubt that KB would have withdrawn/taken no further action on the complaints of 30/7/24 and 5/9/24, seeing that the Claimant was then on a final written warning and therefore was particularly vulnerable to dismissal if found guilty of further infractions.[63]The allegation that KB has been trying to get the Claimant dismissed is not proved. The management have not done anything to stop KB’s behaviour .[64]The essence of this allegation is that management turned a blind eye to complaints about KB. This appears to be the genuine view not only of the Claimant but also of his witnesses. The specific evidence adduced does not support this:[65]In March 2024, the Claimant submitted a formal complaint against KB. The Claimant was invited to a formal grievance meeting, followed by interviews with five witnesses. The grievance was not upheld, and a reasoned outcome was provided. The Claimant exercised his right of appeal, which was considered but did not succeed.[66]In parallel with the grievance, the Respondent proposed on-site mediation with KB which the Claimant refused — stating that he had not read the HR email and did not believe mediation would be a solution.[67]In cross-examination, the Claimant also relied on two emails which post-date the claim and relate to 2025. Mr Patten confirmed in oral evidence that the complaint against Femi Olayemi was being investigated, and that the Claimant’s complaint of 21 June 2025 was investigated informally by Mr Patten, who provided the claimant with an ‘Informal Grievance Resolution Note’ that details all complaints, findings, outcome and actions. If the claimant is not content he can now follow the formal grievance process.[68]The allegation that the Respondent has turned a blind eye to the Claimant’s complaints against KB is not proved. The Claimant is not allowed to go home early but other colleagues are;[69]KB’s witness statement commented on this as follows: “All security officers have shifts and they fulfil them unless there is a specific reason to leave early. If the Claimant had a reason, for example, a doctor’s appointment I would permit that also. The Claimant has also left early on occasion and without any interference from me.”[70]During his oral evidence, the Claimant asserted that “everyone” was allowed to leave early while he was not. When asked by me to name specific individuals, he identified four colleagues: including Mr Yohou (Black, age approx. 55); Mr Khan (Pakistani, age approx. 29/30); and Alex (Black, age approx. 45).[71]The Claimant was unable to refer to any specific dates or occasions to make good these complaints, which he does not appear to have made internally in his grievances.[72]I do not find this allegation proved.
Conclusions
[73]The Claimant has failed to make out many of his complaints as a matter of fact.[74]In all cases, even taking the specific complaints at their highest, there is no discernible connection to the Claimant’s age or race, and it is not shown that they occurred because of or were related to these characteristics.[75]The Claimant has not proved clearly that any proper comparator of different age or race has been treated more favourably in relation to any relevant matter.[76]The Claimant’s evidence both written and oral does not show a pattern of behaviour by KB targeting a group of persons of similar age or the same race as the Claimant. On the contrary, to the extent that the Claimant and his witnesses evidence alleges mistreatment and favouritism by KB towards officers, the allegation is that KB does so without discriminating between them - in other words that he does so to officers of various ages and races, including his own.[77]When I asked the Claimant at the end of his final submissions why he thought KB had been allegedly mistreating him, he first said he did not know, then said maybe it was his age (making no reference to race). I then asked him if that was so, why had he had ticked the box for race discrimination on his ET1 but not the age discrimination box, and why on the basis of the same allegations he had started off the case claiming race discrimination and ended it by claiming age discrimination but making no reference to race. He did not give any credible or coherent answer to these questions.[78]The Claimant has not shown a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination and has not discharged the initial onus of proof in section 136 EA 2010.[79]For these reasons the Equality Act 2010 claims are dismissed.[80]The claim for 4 days’ pay turned out to be based on a loss of salary which the Claimant suffered by not working after he went home, having been upset by the change of his shift on 4/12/23. The Claimant has not succeeded in showing that that change in his shift was unlawful discrimination, so he is not entitled to any remedy in respect of the loss, so that claim also fails.[81]While the Claimant, as a litigant-in-person speaking English as a second language, has not managed to prove any discrimination or harassment on the part of KB, I have some misgivings about this case arising from the fact that the Claimant, (who appears to me to be an experienced and reasonably conscientious security officer), genuinely feels and has felt for some time that he is as a target of unfair and disparate treatment from KB. His criticism of KB’s management style is strongly corroborated by his witnesses, several of whom have also commented that complaining is futile and that KB is protected and his alleged mismanagement is condoned by more senior managers.[82]Despite my specific findings of fact, which do not bear out these criticisms, I feel I have not managed to get to the bottom of what is really going on in this workplace.[83]I have made no positive finding of any specific unfairness or deliberate wrongdoing by KB, or indeed by managers senior to him, and it is possible that the Claimant and his witnesses themselves have portrayed KB and the management situation unfairly. It must also be said that on my findings the Claimant sometimes complains without good cause and when it is he who is responsible for the situation he is complaining about.[84]As I have dismissed the claims, I have no power to make any formal declarations or recommendations but in case this is helpful I offer the following non-binding suggestions to the Respondent:(i) care should be taken to ensure that the Claimant is not victimised for bringing this claim(ii) any complaints against KB in future should be promptly, carefully and fully investigated by an senior manager selected if possible so he or she will be seen as objective and independent, and(iii) arrangements should be made so the Claimant and KB do not have to interact in future, either by ensuring that they do not work in the same building at the same time or by expediting a transfer of the Claimant to another suitable workplace. J S Burns