Mr G Bikakis v H. J. Heinz Manufacturing UK Limited — 2023

Mr G Bikakis, a Greek national working as a maintenance engineer at the respondent's Telford factory, sought three rotations of annual leave in August 2022. H. J. Heinz Manufacturing UK Limited rejected the request on 15 March 2022 as outside its holiday policy, which generally limited leave to two rotations at a time. The tribunal found that there was later discussion about a possible reconsideration if the claimant assisted with overtime, but by 11 May 2022 the respondent had not agreed to authorise the full three rotations and had instead moved to a revised two-rotation request.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal held that the claimant's comparators were not in materially the same circumstances. Mr Hook's holiday to Mexico was in a different role, on a different shift pattern, and at a different time of year; the production workers worked in larger teams under a different management structure; and the other examples relied on by the claimant arose in materially different operational or personal circumstances. The tribunal found that the claimant's request was refused because it exceeded the holiday policy, he did not give a compelling reason at the time for more than two rotations, and August 2022 was a particularly busy period operationally and for staff leave. It found no evidence that nationality was the reason for the treatment complained of and dismissed the direct discrimination complaint.

On indirect race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a PCP of limiting holiday to two rotations at a time, with extensions considered at the company's discretion, and that the PCP was applied to the claimant and to non-Greek employees. However, it found that Greek nationals were not put at a particular disadvantage, because two rotations amounted to 20 days away from work for the claimant's shift pattern and would usually be enough to travel to Greece, while the policy also allowed discretion where circumstances justified it. The tribunal further found that the claimant was not himself put at the relevant disadvantage on the facts, because the need to visit a dying relative only arose later and was not known at the time of the refusal, and his other reasons were not shown to require more than the ordinary allowance. The indirect discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.