In Mr M Kumi v Nando’s Chickenland Ltd Mr Kumi worked as a night cleaner at the Nando’s Soho restaurant. Mr Kumi worked for Nando’s for approximately 9 shifts.
Mr Kumi’s work standards and work ethics were poor. His managers started to receive complaints which caused them to have an informal conversation with him about his performance. A colleague had accused him of being ‘slithery’ and alleged he made her feel uncomfortable during a night shift.
Mr Kumi then “set up” colleagues by secretly recording them in a fishing expedition in the hope he could use it for a claim. At one stage, he had audio recorded an entire night shift, which would be approximately nine hours.
However, the Judge said Mr Kumi was “scraping the bottom of the barrel” when he claimed sound recording of colleagues calling him “darling”, “love” and saying “ladies and gentlemen” amounted to sexual harassment.
On another occasion, he witnessed a colleague drop a burger on the floor and then serve it to a customer. He alerted a manager and later claimed he was being treated unfavourably due to raising the issue and attempting to protect public health and safety. Employment Judge Klimov said this incident was “engineered” and used as a “gotcha” moment.
On September 5, 2021, Mr Kumi officially resigned in writing, explaining: “[A]s an outcome for this serious issue, I am seeking £20,000 in compensation from Nando’s as at now to draw a line in the sand under this issue.”
Judge Klimov wrote “Unfortunately for the claimant, on this occasion, his “canny plan” resulted in a rather poor catch. After 8 days at work, he only had a handful of innocuous greetings such as “ladies and gentlemen” and “love” in his arsenal.
The Judge added: “[Mr Kumi] was candid in his evidence that money was indeed all that he wanted. He said he was “entitled” to ask for a negotiated settlement, even if he had been employed only an hour or even 5 minutes. This, in our view, gives away his motives and his plan which he had all along, that is: go there – make yourself a nuisance –record as many conversations as possible – something will be said or done to you– use that to negotiate a payoff.
Mr Kumi denied that he engineered his claim from the start. He said that it would have been “wrong and malicious” for him to engineer his claim. He said that he had no intention of initiating tribunal proceedings and was simply calling off the wrongs he had suffered at the hands of Nando’s.
In the tribunal proceedings it emerged that he did not last long in his other jobs. He was currently engaged in other tribunal proceedings with a different employer.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
