Case 1400792/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1400792/2018
Decision date: 15 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date
Panel members: Mr J Hutchings, Ms E Thompson

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss B Abioye was employed by B & Q plc as a customer adviser at West Norwood. The tribunal found that she was originally on a flexible contract, that a later reduction in hours to 14 in March 2015 did not remove the flexibility requirement, and that the rota changes in 2017 took place against a background of staffing difficulties. Her grievance in October 2017 alleged that Tyrone Barrett had changed her Saturday 7am shift in favour of Pauline Ricketts, who she said was of the same ethnic background as him, and also complained that she was being picked on and victimised.

The direct race discrimination complaints about the grievance investigation, suspension, and being placed on the rota while off sick were dismissed. On the investigation point, the tribunal found no proper particulars of a discriminatory failure to investigate, accepted that Damien Readman met the claimant, interviewed TB, reviewed records, and that the fact the grievance outcome went against the claimant did not establish discrimination. The claimant did not show that Nathan Boyd was an appropriate comparator. The suspension complaint also failed because the tribunal found no evidence about a comparable situation and no requirement in the handbook to suspend a manager during a grievance. The rota complaint failed because the claimant had not shown enough to shift the burden of proof under section 136 EqA 2010, Igen v Wong, and Madarassy v Nomura.

The allegation that the claimant was moved from the 7am shift on or before 2 September 2017 was held to be out of time under section 123 EqA 2010, with no basis for a just and equitable extension under Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link. The tribunal also said that, if time had been extended, it would still have rejected the allegation on its merits because the shift change was made to provide flexibility and weekend cover and was not because of race. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the grievance was a protected act under section 27 EqA 2010, but held that removal from the WhatsApp group did not amount to a detriment because the claimant was off sick with stress and did not need the rota information. All claims were therefore dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Allegation 4a: moving the claimant from the 7am Saturday shift on or before 2 September 2017. Dismissed as out of time under section 123 EqA 2010; the tribunal also said it would have dismissed the allegation on the merits because the change was made for flexibility and weekend cover, not because of race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	Allegation 4b: failure properly to investigate the grievance. The tribunal found no particulars of discriminatory failure, accepted that the claimant was heard and the grievance was investigated, and held that the fact the outcome was adverse to her did not show race discrimination.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	Allegation 4c: suspension of TB during the grievance process. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had shown an appropriate comparator or that there was any requirement to suspend a manager during a grievance investigation.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	Allegation 4d: being placed on the rota while off sick on 4 November 2017. The tribunal held the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment by reference to an appropriate comparator and, applying the burden of proof approach, the evidence did not support an inference of race discrimination.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	Removal from the WhatsApp group after the grievance meeting. The tribunal accepted the grievance was a protected act but found no detriment, because the claimant was off sick with stress and did not need the rota information.

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.