In Person v Respondent — 2021

Mr S Ekanath brought direct race, religion or belief, and age discrimination claims against B.P. Express Shopping Limited. The tribunal recorded that his final working day was 6 December 2017, that he was absent until 2 January 2018, and that after returning on 3 January 2018 he was suspended and dismissed on 17 January 2018. It found the respondent witnesses credible and honest, and accepted that the claimant's signed job description required duties beyond till work, including tasks involving meat and alcohol.

On the individual allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant was counselled on 9 February 2017 about a drive-off incident because he had not followed procedure; that comments to work faster and the 23 February 2017 observation were part of performance management; that the no-mobile-phone policy explained the 4 June 2015 warning; that the meat-handling discussion did not support the allegation that Ms Bilan said "so what" and in fact led to another employee being asked to fill the chiller; that the November 2017 meeting note reflected what Ms Bilan genuinely thought she heard; and that the nectar-card feedback was balanced and was not a reprimand. The tribunal did not find these matters amounted to less favourable treatment because of race, age, or religion or belief.

The tribunal held that all of the alleged discriminatory acts were out of time for a claim presented after ACAS early conciliation began on 13 April 2018, so acts before 14 January 2018 were prima facie out of time. It found no continuing act and no material basis to extend time as just and equitable, noting the absence of evidence explaining the length of delay or the reasons for it. All three discrimination claims were dismissed. At the end of the hearing, the tribunal ordered that the £96 deposit, set at £16 for each of the six allegations covered by the deposit order, be paid to the respondent under rule 39(5)(b).