Mr. M Mubin v Joseph Heler Limited — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr M Mubin's complaints against Joseph Heler Limited of direct race discrimination, direct discrimination because of perceived disability, and victimisation. Mr Mubin had never been employed by the company. His complaints concerned applications for technical management roles and his not being offered an interim role. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that he had no genuine interest in working for it. His repeated applications and attendance for the scheduled interview supported his stated interest, so rejection was capable of amounting to a detriment.

The March 2024 notification that Mr Mubin had not been selected resulted from recruitment being paused during an audit. More than 100 people had applied through Indeed, and none of their applications progressed at that stage. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race or perceived disability. Recruitment for the interim Technical Manager role was a separate process, and none of the permanent-role applicants through Indeed was interviewed for it. Paul Segynowwycz, who obtained the interim role, was not a suitable actual comparator: he had recently approached the company directly, had previously worked with its owners, and supplied a materially different CV with details of his roles, their duration and his responsibilities.

The tribunal accepted that the interview scheduled for 28 June 2024 was cancelled because Ilona Belinska was investigating metal contamination affecting two production lines at the North Wales site. It rejected the proposed inference that cancellation followed from Mr Mubin's request that interviewers be reminded of his stammer. Sarah Griffith had not passed that request to the relevant decision-makers. After reviewing the CV, Nick Gollins declined to interview Mr Mubin and another candidate, Janet Daniels. The tribunal accepted his concerns that Mr Mubin's CV did not name his current employer or clearly link his earlier roles, their duration and his achievements to particular companies.

The rejection communicated on 4 July followed Mr Gollins' assessment that the CV did not show the skills and experience required for the Technical Manager role. Ms Belinska accepted that assessment and did not press for either candidate to be interviewed. The change to Technical Manager (Senior) reflected a decision to seek more experience and offer higher pay: the advertised experience requirement rose from five to ten years, and pay changed from up to £52,000 to a starting figure of £60,000. The tribunal found that neither the rejection nor the change of role was because of race or the stammer. Mr Gollins' later criticism that the CV lacked academic qualifications was wrong, but academic qualifications had not formed part of his June or July decision.

Mr Mubin used the same CV to apply for the senior role. Ms Belinska rejected that application on 18 July, and the decision was communicated on 25 July. The tribunal accepted that she relied on the earlier assessment that the CV did not meet the requirements of the less senior role. Other candidates relied upon by Mr Mubin had materially different CVs or recruitment circumstances, and their treatment did not support an inference of race discrimination. Around 290 applications had been made through Indeed across the permanent recruitment exercises, but the permanent vacancy was never filled. Mr Gollins' later appointment as Head of Technical was to a different role after more than six months working for the respondent.