Houston v Swissport GB Ltd & Colin Morrow [2017]
Decision Number:
Published on: 10/08/2017
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background

The claimant was employed by the respondent which provided baggage handling and cargo handling services at Belfast International Airport. He had been employed on a part-time and temporary contract which was initially renewed but then later allowed to expire. The claimant was also a Christian pastor and did not approve of same sex relationships or same sex marriages. He made allegations that he had been subjected to various acts of unlawful harassment and discrimination including ‘sickening and offensive’ graffiti in the staff toilets aimed at him as well as a pink deodorant canister being left in his locker which he regarded as harassment due to the colour being associated with homosexuality.

The tribunal found that the claimant had shown a level of aggression towards colleagues on a number of occasions and accepted that had created a succession of problems at work. None of the claimant’s allegations amounted to a prima facie case of discrimination and the respondent was justified in not renewing his contract.

Practical Lessons

The tribunal accepted that the temptation not to renew the claimant’s temporary contract must have been ‘overwhelming’. The employer here had hoped to avoid the unpleasantness of informing the claimant that the reason for his non-renewal was his conduct, but this would have been the preferable course of action for sake of clarity. In its own words, the respondent took the ‘easy way out’ by using a standard non-renewal letter. Also, due to the temporary nature of the contract, the respondent was not obliged to carry out a full investigatory investigation into the alleged conduct.

However, as the tribunal pointed out this would have been a useful exercise especially considering the seriousness of the complaints that were made against the claimant. This will always be a matter of degree as such investigations can be resource heavy, but this case must have always appeared to be a claim waiting to happen and a proper investigation may have been the earliest protection the respondent could have put in place.
https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearch.aspx

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 10/08/2017