A missing office mug and a denied holiday request were at the heart of a Tribunal claim brought by an employee against his former employer, Currys. Whilst the Tribunal dismissed nearly all of Mr Habib’s claims, including those of race and sex discrimination, harassment and disability discrimination, it did find that he had been underpaid notice pay, awarding him just over £1,200.
This case highlights how interpersonal tensions and misunderstandings in the workplace, if left unaddressed, can snowball into costly and time-consuming disputes.
Background
Mr Adeel Habib, a British Asian man of Pakistani origin, was employed by Currys. During his time at the company, a series of disagreements and incidents led to a gradual breakdown in workplace relationships.
One of Mr Habib’s central allegations was that he had been racially discriminated against when Currys refused his request for five weeks’ holiday to attend family events in Pakistan. He argued that the refusal was racially motivated, particularly in light of another colleague having been granted a longer period of leave.
Another source of workplace tension stemmed from the disappearance of Mr Habib’s personal mug from the office kitchen. The Tribunal described Mr Habib as being “probably very upset” about the mug going missing and commented on his “tenacity” in pursuing the issue. Whilst he was offered assistance by a colleague to investigate its whereabouts, his reaction was perceived by others as disproportionate.
The Tribunal concluded that Mr Habib likely gave the impression he believed the mug had been stolen. This, in turn, led to resentment among his co-workers and a strain in workplace relationships. Mr Habib later claimed he was cold-shouldered following the incident, which he viewed as further evidence of discriminatory treatment. However, the Tribunal found no link between this behaviour and any protected characteristic, concluding that the social tension arose from Mr Habib’s own conduct.
Mr Habib also brought claims of harassment related to sex, alleging inappropriate behaviour by a female colleague, including physical contact and personal comments. However, the allegations were found to be vague, inconsistent and lacking sufficient evidence.
In relation to disability discrimination, Mr Habib argued that Currys had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his type 2 diabetes and learning difficulties. However, the Tribunal found that he had not informed his employer of any specific needs or requested adjustments during his employment, and in fact, had seemingly concealed any such requirements.
Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the majority of Mr Habib’s claims, concluding that there was no evidence of discriminatory or harassing conduct by Currys or its employees.
In relation to the denied holiday request, the Tribunal found that the refusal was a reasonable application of Currys’ policy, which typically restricted leave to a maximum of two weeks. While a colleague had been granted a longer holiday, she had disclosed this at the interview stage, unlike Mr Habib. The Tribunal found no connection between the refusal and Mr Habib’s race.
Regarding the missing mug, the Tribunal acknowledged Mr Habib’s distress, but concluded the situation was mishandled on a personal, not discriminatory level. Any cold-shouldering from colleagues was found by the panel to be a response to his behaviour, rather than unlawful treatment.
Despite the broad rejection of his claims, the Tribunal did find that Mr Habib had been underpaid notice pay. Although his contract stated that he was not subject to a probationary period, he was treated as if he was and given only one week’s notice upon termination. The Tribunal found this to be a breach of contract and awarded him £1,209.64 in damages.
Lessons for Employers
This case serves as a useful reminder for employers to apply policies consistently and to communicate decisions clearly. Holiday requests, particularly those outside normal policy, should be assessed objectively, and any exceptions must be justified and documented.
This case also highlights the importance of managing minor workplace disputes sensitively. Incidents that may seem trivial, such as the loss of a mug, can become emotionally charged and have wider implications for workplace dynamics if not addressed early and appropriately.
While Currys successfully defended the substantive discrimination and harassment claims, the case demonstrates how unresolved workplace issues and poor communication can escalate into wider conflict, even in the absence of unlawful conduct.
