Mr D Phipps v Carlisle Support Services Group Ltd: 3311668/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3311668/2023

Between

Mr D PhippsClaimant

Carlisle Support Services Group LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Young

In person for claimant

Date 22 January 2026

JUDGMENT

The decision of the Tribunal is:(1) The Claimant’s complaint that his dismissal was direct discrimination on the grounds of disability under section 13 Equality Act 2010 is struck out.

(2) The Claimant’s complaint that his complaint about having to work from the entrance security lodge at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium training grounds amounted to discrimination arising from something in consequence of the Claimant’s disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 is struck out.

(3) The Claimant’s remaining complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability and discrimination arising from disability are not struck out.

REASONS

[1]The Claimant has been working as a security officer on various assignments for the Respondent who are an national provider of security services from 5 January 2023. The Claimant is currently not working for the Respondent. The Claimant contacted ACAS early conciliation on 15 August 2023 and a certificate was issued on 5 September 2023. The Claimant presented his Employment Tribunal claim for disability discrimination on 13 October 2023.

[2]The Respondent defends the claims and made an application in their response form for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. By order of EJ Alliot dated 4 June 2024 the Employment Tribunal listed a preliminary hearing to determine whether to strike out the claims or not or order a deposit or not. By letter dated 23 May 2024, the preliminary hearing was listed in public for 3 July 2024. Applications to be determined

[3]The applications before me were:(1) Whether the claim should be struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulation 2013 (“ET Rules”) on the grounds that the Claimant complaints have no reasonable prospect of success.

(2) In the alternative whether there should be a deposit order in respect of the Claimant’s claim. Hearing

[4]The Tribunal received a hearing bundle from the Respondent of 73 pages and an index. All references to page numbers in square brackets are a reference to the hearing bundle. The Claimant relied upon his contract for service with the Respondent sent to the Employment Tribunal on 1 July 2024. The Law on Strike Out

[5]Rule 37 of the ET Rules gives the Tribunal the power to strike out all or part of a claim: “37.— Striking out (1) At any stage of the proceedings, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, a Tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim or response on any of the following grounds— i. that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success;

[6]Rule 37(2) says that a claim or response may not be struck out unless the party in question has been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, either in writing or, if requested by the party, at a hearing.

[7]The EAT has held that the striking out process requires a two-stage test in HM Prison Service v. Dolby

[2003] IRLR 694

EAT, at paragraph 15. The first stage involves a finding that one of the specified grounds for striking out has been established; and, if it has, the second stage requires the tribunal to decide as a matter of discretion whether to strike out the claim, order it to be amended or order a deposit to be paid. See also Hassan v. Tesco Stores

UKEAT/0098/19/BA

at paragraph 17 the EAT observed: “There is absolutely nothing in the Judgment to indicate that the Employment Judge paused, having reached the conclusion that these claims had no reasonable prospect of success, to consider how to exercise his discretion. The way in which r 37 is framed is permissive. It allows an Employment Judge to strike out a claim where one of the five grounds are established, but it does not require him or her to do so. That is why in the case of Dolby the test for striking out under the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 was interpreted as requiring a two stage approach.” Submissions

[8]The Respondent’s application was set out in their response form. The basis of the application was that the Claimant’s complaints as contained in his claim form and his responses containing further and better particulars of his claim dated 11 June 2024 (‘FBP’) to the Employment Tribunal’s order for further information dated 4 June 2024 had no reasonable prospects of success.

[9]Ms Veimou’s submissions were that the Claimant in his FBP describes his direct discrimination claim about dismissal by Mr O’Donnell. He assumes John Angel an employee of the Respondent had meetings with Tottenham Hotspur Stadium employee Mr O’Donnell, but he has no basis for saying that the both were speaking about him, in any event this would not give rise to a direct discrimination complaint. The Claimant has not mentioned a comparator but is only relying on himself.

[10]In respect of the Claimant’s discrimination arising from disability complaint, the entrance security lodge (‘ESL’) has no connection to the employer. Ms Veimou said the Claimant did not ask to change locations or speak to a representative from the Respondent, he said he spoke to Mr O’Donnell from the client. The PCP claim is not being pursued anymore. Neither has the Claimant complained about any issues with other jobs he has done for the Respondent. I pointed out to Ms Veimou that the Claimant had complained about his shift with the BBC studios works. Ms Veimou graciously conceded that point. But continued on how the grievance process was handled by the Respondent taken at its highest did not give rise to discrimination arising from disability. It was the Claimant who refused to engage with the grievance process and attend the grievance hearing.

[11]The Claimant’s response to the Respondent’s application was in summary to repeat the detail of his claims of direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability against the Respondent. The Claimant said that he didn’t live far from Tottenham Hotspur Stadium training ground where he worked for the Respondent even though the ESL was affecting his mental health. The Claimant said that there was stuff they could have done. He asked the manager and he said he would look into it. He told the manager about the ESL affecting his mental health and the manager said it was unfit for purpose. The Claimant said that he was hoping the manager could make adaptions. The Claimant said he didn’t want to be relocated so he didn’t ask to be. Regarding discrimination within the Respondent’s response it says Tottenham Hotspur Stadium training ground warned him before they got rid of him, that it is just hearsay, because they didn’t warn the Claimant. There was an email to the Claimant from Lloyd O’Donnell where the Claimant asked him what the Claimant had said. The Claimant said that he wanted the Respondent’s response struck out [30], paragraph 4 of the Respondent’s particulars of response on the grounds that it is not true and it is a lie. The Claimant said that he had sent an email stating that he had previously asked for the Respondent’s response to be struck out. However the Claimant was unable to identify the date and time of when the email was sent to the Employment Tribunal and the Claimant did not send the email to the Respondent. Ms Veimou stated that she had no knowledge of such a request. Analysis and Conclusion

[12]The Employment Tribunal cannot strike out the Respondent’s response as the basis of the application as it was a matter of evidence as to whether it was untrue or a lie. It was not my role as the Employment Tribunal to determine the Claimant’s claim at this stage. The Respondent had no notice of the Claimant’s application. The Claimant’s application was refused.

[13]The Claimant’s claim for direct discrimination arises from the Claimant alleging that he was dismissed from his assignment at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and that the reason he was dismissed was because of his disability of depression and anxiety. At no time in the Claimant’s claim form or FBP does the Claimant say that anyone employed by the Respondent made the decision to dismiss him. What the Claimant says is that the Respondent knew about his disability and knew that Tottenham Hotspur Stadium had discriminated against him and they did nothing about it. The Claimant refused to accept that the Respondent had no liability for this act. I have considered whether on the present facts that the Claimant could show that the Respondent did have anything to do with his removal from the site and so section 111 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) might apply. However, the facts contained in both the claim form and the FBP of approximately 6 pages does not disclose this at all. At no point does the Claimant say that the Respondent was involved in the decision to remove him from site. In those circumstances, I cannot see how with the Claimant’s claim set at its highest could amount to direct discrimination.

[14]In respect of one of the Claimant’s complaints for discrimination arising from disability. The Claimant says that he spoke to a manager Lloyd O’Donnell that the entrance security lodge was not fit for purpose and was affecting his mental health and Mr O’Donnell said that he would do something about it but he didn’t. The reason (the Claimant said) that Mr O’Donnell didn’t do something about the ESL was because of the Claimant’s unlikeable nature, explosive nature, falling out with colleagues, fiery nature, that manifested in a cramped conditions such as the ESL. Mr O’Donnell did not like the Claimant’s nature and was neglectful. It is the Claimant’s nature that arises as a consequence of his disability. However, the allegation is made against Tottenham Hotspur Stadium employee Mr O’Donnell and is not proposed against any employee of the Respondent.

[15]As the aforementioned acts of discrimination complained of are against employees of Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and not against the Respondent, both are struck out.

[16]There appears to be a remaining claim of discrimination arising from disability on the basis that the Respondent had failed to deal with the Claimant’s grievance against Tottenham Hotspur Stadium because of his disability. The Respondent said that the Claimant did not engage in the grievance process and did not attend the grievance hearing arranged for him. The Claimant says that he did not attend the grievance meetings because of his disability and that he felt vulnerable with HR and so it was a consequence of his lack of attendance and engagement that he was treated less favourably. I consider that the prospects of this claim cannot be determined without evidence. In reaching my decision in this case I have had regard to the guidance set out by the EAT in Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland and ors

2021 ICR 1307

, EAT, which incudes the advice that where factual issues are disputed, it is highly unlikely that strike out will be appropriate. So I refused a strike out of this complaint.

[17]I have also considered whether a deposit order is warranted. Although, on the facts I have considered, and the submissions made, I can see some difficulties for the Claimant based upon the proximity of time to his consultation with ACAS and his lack of engagement with the grievance process do not think the prospects of the discrimination arising from disability claim have little reasonable prospect of success. So I also refused a deposit order.

[18]The Claimant also says that he was turned down for a shift at the BBC Studios Works and that he has the strong feeling that it is discrimination and this amounts to a direct discrimination claim. A feeling is not evidence and there appears to be no facts presently upon which the Claimant is relying to say that his shift was cancelled because of his disability. It appears to me that claim has little prospects of success and so I refused a strike out of this complaint as well.

The facts

[19]The claimant was engaged by the respondent on a contract for services on 6 January 2023. He worked in Events Security.

[20]The terms of engagement provide as follows: “2.2 For the avoidance of doubt, these Terms shall not give rise to a contract of employment between Carlise and You and does not confer any employment rights on You (other than those to which workers are entitled). By entering into this contract, you confirm Your understanding that You will not be entitled to bring any claims for certain legal rights conferred on employees . 2.3 Carlisle cannot always predict the exact staffing levels it will require. By entering into this contract, you confirm Your understanding that Carlise makes no promise or guarantee of a minimum level of work to You and You will work on a flexible, “as available” basis. It is the intention of both You and the Company that there be no mutuality of obligation between the parties at any time when You are not performing an Assignment. … 9. Termination 9.1 Carlisle or the Client may terminate the Assignment at any time without prior notice or liability save where a notice period has been agreed for the Assignment.”

[21]The respondent has a grievance procedure. This provides:- “3.4 On receipt of a written grievance from a current employee, the Company shall invite the employee to attend a hearing to discuss the grievance(s) in more detail as soon as practicable. The chair of the hearing shall be an impartial investigating manager, and the employee should be given 48 hours written notice of the hearing, this will allow time to arrange representation should the employee choose. 3.5 Following the grievance hearing the investigation manager shall decide on what appropriate actions, if any, should be taken. There may be a need to carry out a further investigation to ascertain the facts. In addition, the investigating manager may seek further clarification from the employee raising the grievance. This should be undertaken as soon as is reasonably practicable.”

[22]The respondent has accepted that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times by reason of depression.

[23]In May 2023, the claimant was working at Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre. On 22 May 2023, the claimant was removed from site due to behaviour and opinions that offended the client (Tottenham Hotspur).

[24]In his claim form and in his evidence before us, the claimant suggested that his removal was unexpected and unexplained.

[25]On 13 July 223, nearly two months later, the claimant emailed Michael Hill (of Tottenham Hotspur) asking for the reason for his “dismissal”.

[26]We have an email dated 13 July 2023 sent by Lloyd O’Donnell (Enfield Security Manager) of Tottenham Hotspur to Charles Tackie of the respondent which states:- “In the matter of David Phipps, he was recently removed from the Training centre due to inability to speak positively about the clients product. David was not selective about to who he spoke negatively on subjects directly concerning the client THFC. First occasion, I spoke to him on this subject was, when he engaged in an unnecessarily long and derogatory conversation about the first team, with Andrew Scoulding, Head of Football Strategy. Andy was concerned enough to call a Director who informed me of the incident. David was spoken with and agreed to be more aware of the lack of professionalism shown in letting his personal thoughts dedicate his speak at work, and that this would not happen again. The second incident, involving the First team Executive Assistant/Floor Manager Susan Bowdidge. On entry to the VCP he bemoaned the currently poor streak of form the first team were in, however prevented her from leaving the VCP to attend work. Susan recalled the very poor opinion David had of THFC and she was appalled by his behaviour and lack of control. The Director of Operations Paul May, let me know David was not the type of officer to be deployed here at any time! Hence being asked to leave site.”

[27]Further, we have an email dated 25 August 2023 from Lloyd O’Donnell to Vickie Eastwell which states:- “As discussed, David was not dismissed. He was removed from this site due to behaviour and opinions that offended the client, to which having been spoken to about the severity of his conduct he repeated to another senior member of management for second time! In the meeting on the academy dining bridge, David’s conduct was discussed. 1. Not to approach staff to engage in longwinded unnecessary conversations. Take a security approach that once you have confirmed visually or verbally the credibility for the person’s requirement to on site, move on. 2. If visitors do wish to speak to you, be polite listen to their enquiry and make your excuses to continue with your taskings unless it is an emergency and respond accordingly. 3. Do not enter into conversations about the business or business performance in a rude and offensive way. Do not talk about football results good or bad. 4. Confine your conversations to those required to perform security or enhance the protection of the site. Identify everyone you are talking to, so that you can moderate your conversation. Do not speak about security unless it’s with the security team. 5. The client values and how confidentiality/trust/loyalty are key to working here. Having agreed not to be disparaging about the company, when the second occurrence took place, the client express the risk to the business his lack of confidentiality could cause the business and that his presence on site detrimental to the good name of the security team. Being a relief member of staff and the clear understanding that the client does not tolerate this level of conduct, he was asked not to attend this site in future or accept any vendings for this location. I believe he was asked to leave site, at this point by Michael. He was not dismissed, just asked not to return to this site.”

[28]We express no findings as to the claimant’s conduct whilst working at Tottenham Hotspur. However, we find that the claimant was removed from working there due to the request from the client. This was in accordance with the claimant’s contract of engagement.

[29]On 22 July 2023, the claimant emailed Lloyd O’Donnell stating that he was going forward with a grievance against him with immediate effect.

[30]The claimant’s email of 22 July 2023 was forwarded to Vickie Eastwell, who emailed the claimant on 31 July 2023 stating:- “Following your email sent to Lloyd, if you would like to submit a formal grievance, I have attached our Grievance Procedure Company Policy for guidance.”

[31]On 31 July 2023, the claimant sent an email to Vickie Eastwell as follows:- “With regard to the email you sent me this afternoon, I have recently emailed Lloyd a number of emails which in my view explained quite clearly what the issues are that I require explanations to from Lloyd As Lloyd has not responded to me with the explanations I requested within the 7 day timeframe, I wish to go forward with a grievance against Lloyd. You have pointed out it to me it seems that the correct terminology for this path is that of a formal grievance? … I would like your consideration and support please with this whole matter I am proceedings with. I have recently had my prescribed medication increased by my GP who will be reviewing my state of health in a few weeks time.”

[32]On 31 July 2023 Vickie Eastwell replied:- “Thank you for your email, please could you send an email detailing the reasons for your grievance and I will arrange for a manager to hear your grievance.”

[33]Later on 31 July 2023 the claimant complained that his request for support had not been addressed.

[34]Vickie Eastwell replied on 2 August 2023 as follows:- “Thank you for your email, I wanted to reassure you we are not dismissing your grievance and we are requesting detailed information from yourself to enable us to investigate your grievance further. … I can see from your email dated 31 July where you have said you were given information Employee Assistance Programme, I would also like to offer you additional support available to yourself from our Mental Health First Aid Team, please could you advise if you would like me to ask a member of the Team to call you?”

[35]On 4 August 2023, the claimant sent in his formal grievance against Lloyd O’Donnell. It is detailed, closely typed, and covers two pages in our bundle. The grievance includes the following:- “I also feel it is right and proper for me to be compensated appropriately by the authorising body. Compensation would include my loss of earnings, harm to my mental health condition/s. Also a one-off payment to me of a significant sum of money for what this entire matter has done to me and my life as well for me being initially put through this whole despicable experience unnecessarily.”

[36]We note that at an early stage the claimant was seeking financial compensation.

[37]On 5 August 223 the claimant contacted Paul Evans, the respondent’s Chief Executive and his concerns were escalated to Suzanne Hawkins (HR).

[38]On 14 August 2023 Suzanne Hawkins emailed the claimant as follows:- “Following on from Simon’s email below. Please can you advise your availability to discuss the matter further.”

[39]The claimant replied on 14 August 2023 as follows:- “Firstly, I need you to confirm to me by email by tomorrow 10 am that the grievance case has been received and heard by the appropriate manager as this is what I understand would happen from my communication with Vickie Eastwell, HR. It is my understanding that Vickie was taken off initiating the case. I also recall requesting the case to be sent to the appropriate manager immediately, hence, this request from me is in the cover letter (email) I sent with the case on the 06/08/2023 as I recall. Confirmation from yourself to me regarding whether the appropriate manager has received my case as per my request and also read all of the information fully which I provided by myself will enable me to make a decision on whether I feel it is fair for me in my position to agree to discussing matters as per your email. If I decide from your next email response to discuss matters, then I am currently available this Wednesday 16/08/2023. My availability in terms of time on that day depends on the outcome of the agreed meeting venue of which I require a say in thank you. I also request that minutes are taken in a meeting for records and also that I require copies of all minutes taken please.”

[40]Later on 14 August 2023 the claimant sent an email to Suzanne Hawkins as follows:- “Upon reflection of the email I have this evening sent to you as a reply, I have the following to say to you. I have a mental health condition/s for which I am currently taking prescribed medication. The mental health condition/s has been pointed out in my grievance case. I am currently being assessed for mental health support by the NHS which relates to my referral to the Occupational Health at Work scheme which was initiated by Nicole Hudson during my duties at Wimbledon Champs 2023. I therefore feel it will be better to initiate an independent body to mediate my grievance between myself and the appropriate management/HR at Carlisle Support Services. I plan to initiate the support from the independent body first thing tomorrow so I hope to receive from you an email which accounts for the matters you/Carlisle wish to discuss with me. I can then promptly forward this information to the independent body so as they can begin mediation between myself and the appropriate management/HR whom are dealing with my grievance case at Carlise Support Services.”

[41]On 15 August 2023, the claimant did indeed notify ACAS for early conciliation purposes. The claimant clearly references mediation in his email.

[42]Also, on 15 August 203 Suzanne Hawkins replied:- “I have managed to catch up with Vickie this morning to understand your case further. Details have been given to an independent manager within the division to hear your grievance. We are just waiting for him to fix a hearing date. Once we have this, we will write to you with the details.”

[43]The claimant replied on 15 August 2023 as follows:- “I have today submitted the grievance to an independent body which is currently being processed. My intention is to have a mediator allocated to deal with my grievance and this is also intended to support me and my mental health.”

[44]On 21 August 203 Vickie Eastwell emailed the claimant a letter from Aleem Kalyal, Contract Manager, to the claimant stating that he would hear the claimant’s grievance on 24 August 2023 via Teams.

[45]Later on 21 August 2023 the claimant replied that he was unable to attend the grievance hearing on 24 August 2023. He stated that:- “…Due to my mental health I have decided to have my allocated Acas conciliator be the point of contact for Carlisle Support Services as to mediate between myself and the company.”

[46]On 25 August 2023 Suzanne Hawkins emailed the claimant as follows:- “We have received the ACAS paperwork and sent this to our legal team for actioning. They will reach out to ACAS accordingly. We have discussed that we haven’t yet concluded the internal process and therefore will not be discussing any settlement until we have heard your grievance in full. I understand from Vickie that the hearing has been scheduled a couple of times but is yet to be heard. We would like to [take] the opportunity to hear your grievance to find an appropriate resolution. If you do not want to attend, we can conduct the process by written correspondents [sic] until the grievance is concluded. Please advise if this would be an appropriate method for you.” We note that the claimant was specifically given an option of having his grievance dealt with on paper.

[47]On 25 August 2023, the claimant complained that he had no faith in Vickie Eastwell and reiterated that he wanted his grievance dealt with by ACAS.

[48]As a result, Suzanne Hawkins replaced Vickie Eastwell with Susan Bryson, Head of HR.

[49]In his oral evidence the claimant stated that, having seen the evidence, he had no complaint about the handling of his grievance up until this time.

[50]On 29 August 2023, the claimant lodged a second grievance against Charles Tackie, Level 1 Manager, arising out of a cancelled shift at the BBC. Again, the claimant was seeking compensation.

[51]On 29 August 2023 Susan Bryson emailed the claimant stating:- “Further to the email from Suzanne please can you let me know when would be a good time to chat regarding your current issues/grievances.”

[52]On 29 August 29023 the claimant replied:- “With regard to my grievance against Lloyd O’Donnell, I currently would like you to go through the channel of my conciliator at Acas please.” The claimant indicated that he would have a call about the Charles Tackie grievance.

[53]At 9.15 on 30 August Susan Bryson suggested they have a chat at 3 pm.

[54]At 9.42 Susan Bryson emailed the claimant as follows:- “I would like to get an understanding from the beginning as I see that there has been no grievance meetings arranged with you for us to investigate under concerns under our duty of care and policy. Therefore I would like to get an overview of your issues to see what the next steps are.”

[55]The claimant replied at 10.24 that he wanted the grievance “put through Acas via written correspondence.”

[56]Susan Bryson replied:- “I’m not sure that ACAS will conduct a grievance investigation and will probably ask why CSS haven’t done it. Do you have a contact at ACAS I can verify that they are going to carry out an investigation to ensure you get a fair hearing.”

[57]On 30 August 2023, the claimant replied:- “Furthermore it is my understanding that my ACAS conciliator’s part in the grievance is to mediate between yourself (party) and myself regarding the case with intent on trying to aid an agreement for both parties. It is also my understanding that as the case is now with you, that you should investigate the grievance information I have provided by taking the necessary steps in interviewing the staff concerned at Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre, obviously Lloyd O’Donnell needs to be taken through the appropriate steps of being investigated and whomever is concerned/relevant. Do you think it best not we have a call today as I have given you all these details now?”

[58]Susan Bryson replied as follows:- “For us to enter into an early conciliation we would have to follow our own internal process of investigating your concerns before any form of mediation. Therefore you are correct in stating that I would need to investigate first. When you had previously stated that you did not want to attend any meetings and go through ACAS it was a bit confusing but we can discuss informally this afternoon to determine our next steps. So naturally I will still want to chat with your firstly.”

[59]On or about 30 August 2023 the claimant spoke to Susan Bryson on two occasions by telephone. On the first occasion, the claimant told us she was very supportive.

[60]On the second occasion the claimant states that Susan Bryson shouted at him and was very aggressive. Susan Bryson denies shouting or being aggressive.

[61]The context of the exchange is that the claimant was adamant that he had been dismissed from Tottenham Hotspur but Susan Bryson was correcting him that he had been removed from working for that client. The claimant accepts that Susan Bryson asked him if he had worked since and he erroneously replied “no”. Thereupon the claimant says that Susan Bryson corrected him and told him that he had worked at Wimbledon and Ascot. Hence, what Susan Bryson communicated was entirely factually accurate. The issue is whether Susan Bryson shouted at the claimant aggressively.

[62]In an email dated 31 August 2023 Susan Bryson thanked the claimant for what she termed was a meeting and was probably a telephone call to follow up some of the things discussed. She states:- “I confirmed that whilst you had been removed from the contract you have not been dismissed from your contract of employment and since your departure from Tottenham you have worked at Wimbledon and Ascot. We also discussed your second grievance which was related to you not being given work at BBC Studios due to inadequate training. Before I move on to the investigation stage please could you confirm if you would like your grievances to be dealt with informally or formally.”

[63]The claimant replied on 31 August as follows:- “This email is NOT to confirm that I agree for you to go ahead with next stages of investigation with my grievance as yet. I will give all aspects of your email careful consideration. You seem a decent lady, however, business is business.”

[64]We note that there is no complaint about Susan Bryson shouting and being aggressive in that follow up email.

[65]Having seen and heard the claimant, it is clear to us that he can be loud and forceful when he wants to get a point across. He also interrupted when being questioned despite being reminded on several occasions that he should not do this.

[66]Susan Bryson accepted that on occasion she might come across as loud due to having hearing problems.

[67]We find that during a telephone call where they both disagreed as to whether the claimant had been dismissed, the claimant by a mistake wrongly said that he had not worked for the respondent since leaving Tottenham Hotspur and Susan Bryson pointed out that in fact he had. We find that, if Susan Bryson raised her voice, it would only have been to get her point across to an argumentative and loud individual. We find that she did not shout Accordingly, we find that the treatment alleged in issue 1(b) is not proved.

[68]In any event, we find that even if she did shout, then it was not due to anything arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability as set out in the list of issues. It was because he had said something that was inaccurate.

[69]On 4 September 2023, the claimant stated that he had ended contact with Susan Bryson concerning both grievances and Suzanne Hawkins indicated that Susan Bryson would continue to support the claimant and external legal consultants would liaise with ACAS.

[70]On 7 September 2023 Susan Bryson sent an email to the claimant setting out his worker status citing clauses from his terms of engagement to demonstrate that the claimant had not been dismissed. It concludes:- “Now that we have established facts relating to your contract do you wish to proceed with a grievance under CSS’s policy. Please could you let me know by the end of this week so I can make the necessary arrangements. If I do not receive confirmation by the end of this week I will assume you no longer wish to pursue this matter and I will regard it as being closed.”

[71]On 8 September 2023, the claimant sent a reply which includes:- “I do want you to arrange a grievance meeting and it looks like I will be representing myself, hence, it is likely I will have nobody supporting me, however, I will do my best to represent myself. I am of the understanding that the meeting will consist of you and I on a Microsoft Teams? I do want the meeting recorded…”

[72]On 8 September 2023 Suzanne Hawkins replied:- “We have attempted to investigate your grievance and invited you to a grievance hearing, yet you have told Susan although you want a meeting you do not want to attend a grievance meeting. Susan has asked you to clarify what meeting you want; you are yet to clarify this. Until you do this, we cannot help further. A meeting is the first stage of our grievance process and unable to conclude the matter without this hearing/investigation.”

[73]On 15 September Susan Bryson sent the claimant a letter inviting him to a grievance hearing by Teams on 19 September 2023 at 2 pm with Aleem Kalyal.

[74]On 19 September 2023, the claimant sent an email stating he would not be attending the grievance meeting due to his state of mind. He later sent a GP letter which states:- “I understand this gentleman is due to have a meeting regarding a grievance. Unfortunately he doesn’t feel that he is mentally well enough at the moment. He is known to have a background of depression and takes regular medication for this. He informs me that his usual mental health follow up has been cancelled due to the illness of a staff member which has added to this. Could this please be taken into consideration going forward.”

[75]Susan Bryson followed up with a letter dated 25 September 2023 setting out the position and this includes the following:- “As you have now informed us that you do not feel fit enough to attend the hearing due to your mental health, we will not look to arrange a further meeting at this time. Your grievance will therefore be placed on hold until such time that you feel fit to attend a meeting. Alternatively, if you would prefer, we can look at holding the hearing via Microsoft Teams or via written submissions. Please do let me know if these options would be more suitable to you.”

[76]On 27 September 2023 Susan Bryson sent an email as follows:- “As detailed in my letter of 24th [should be 25th] September you have stated that you are not well enough to attend a grievance hearing and have provided medical evidence to support his fact. Therefore there will be no further correspondence regarding your grievance and I have put it on hold until you feel well enough to attend. This will hopefully help with your recovery.”

[77]On 27 September 2023, the claimant replied:- “Further to your email response of today I am most disappointed and so have sought legal advice. I now feel my only option is to submit my grievance to a tribunal.”

[78]At no stage until the claimant presented his claim on 13 October 2023 did the claimant inform the respondent that he was well enough to progress his grievance.

[79]Having reviewed the respondent’s actions in relation to the claimant’s grievances we make the following findings:

[80]We find that the respondent did not fail to deal properly with the claimant’s grievances. We find that the respondent went out of its way to deal with the claimant’s grievances as best it could given the claimant’s reluctance to cooperate. It was noticeable that when the claimant was asked what more the respondent could or should have done he could only suggest dealing with the grievance on the papers but had no real answer when it was pointed out to him that this had been offered on more than one occasion and he had not taken it up.

[81]Consequently, the claimant has not proved any unfavourable treatment and the claim must fail.

[82]For the above reasons, the claimant’s claim is dismissed. Approved by: