Claims of direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of race and/or age were dismissed.
Facts
Mr Perera began employment at Sainsbury’s on 3 January 2006. From May 2017 to 9 June 2018, he worked as a 4S Deputy Manager at the Sainsbury’s London Queensway store. At this time, he was in the age bracket 46-55.
In January 2018, a review decided that the 4S Deputy Manager position would be abolished and replaced with 3S and 4S Customer Trading Manager roles.
Mr Perera had an interview for the new job roles. He was offered a 3S CTM role or a 3S Trainee Manager role, but did not meet the required standard to be offered a 4S CTM role. Mr Perera was offered and accepted a new role as a 3S CTM at London Queensway North store with a trial period of 4 weeks. Mr Perera felt that the role was a step down and that it was not enough money, despite his salary from his previous position being maintained.
His trial was unsuccessful and he was subsequently made redundant.
Mr Perera made numerous allegations against the Sainsbury’s. He claimed that there were numerous incidences throughout his employment of direct discrimination as a result of his age, numerous incidents of indirect discrimination as a result of his age, as well as two allegations of harassment.
Facts
The Tribunal dismissed all Mr Perera’s claims.
Direct discrimination
Mr Perera failed to provide evidence of facts from which age discrimination could be inferred. Mr Perera had claimed that he was excluded from promotion on various occasions as a result of his age but the Tribunal did not find evidence of this.
Indirect discrimination
The Employment Tribunal held that the provisions, criterions and practices implemented by Sainsbury’s do not place those within the age bracket 46-55 at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to employees younger than 46. An example of a provision concerned was setting a band maximum of £27,000 for the new 3S CTM role. For this reason, the Employment Tribunal dismissed this claim.
Harassment
The Employment Tribunal did not find evidence of harassment.
Mr Perera claimed that Mr Ali, a Store Manager, committed acts which amounted to harassment. The Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence heard that the acts alleged occurred save for two acts which Mr Ali admitted, both of which, the Tribunal held not to amount to harassment. The first was that Mr Ali suggested Mr Perera join WhatsApp group of which Mr Ali was not a member and Mr Ali reducing the number of chairs in the office from two to one.
This did not amount to harassment.
The judgment is available here.
Mr Ajith Perera v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, Case Number: 2206045/2018, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and (in chambers) 26 November