Case 1600187/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600187/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Powell’s
- Panel members
- Mrs D Hebb, Mrs J Kieley
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Davies, who described herself as Polish, was employed by Tui UK from 12 November 2018 and dismissed on 12 December 2018 while training for a call centre role. She brought claims of direct race discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal heard evidence about a heated discussion on 30 November 2018 in which comments were exchanged about Brexit, foreigners, and Welsh people living on council estates.
The tribunal found that both the claimant and F used offensive language, but it could not determine the sequence of their comments. It accepted that Ms Beynon was aware of the dispute and that she concentrated on the claimant's comments rather than hearing the full account. Applying section 13 and section 136 Equality Act 2010, and referring to Anya v University of Oxford, Shamoon, Igen v Wong, and Barton, it held that the claimant was treated less favourably when she alone was called to explain her conduct while F was not. That difference in treatment was found to be because of race, so the race discrimination claim was well founded on that issue.
The tribunal rejected the other race discrimination allegations. It did not accept that Amy Norman distorted the claimant's remarks, did not find that Ms Beynon agreed with F's comments, and concluded that the later disciplinary process and dismissal would have occurred in any event on the facts before the respondent. It found the claimant's responses and conduct gave rise to concerns about temperament and credibility, and that a hypothetical comparator in the same position would also have been disciplined and dismissed.
For remedy, the tribunal said the discriminatory act was a one-off incident but that the injury to feelings had some continuing effect. It placed the case in the lower Vento band and awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings only, stating that no other compensation arose from the discriminatory act. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed because the parking permit deduction had been agreed and the absence of the permit after dismissal did not make the deduction unlawful.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal upheld the race discrimination claim only in part. It found that Ms Beynon calling the claimant to a meeting to explain her conduct was less favourable treatment because of race, because Ms Beynon knew of both the claimant's comments and F's comments but only called the claimant to account and gave no satisfactory explanation for that difference. The tribunal rejected the allegations that Amy Norman distorted the claimant's comments, that Ms Beynon agreed with F's comments, and that the later disciplinary hearing and dismissal were race discrimination. | Upheld | Race | £1,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the deduction for the parking permit was agreed by the claimant and was therefore not an unlawful deduction of wages, even though she did not benefit from the permit before dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Anya v University of Oxford & Anr [2001] IRLR 377
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] IRLR 285
- Igen v Wong and Ors [2005] IRLR 258
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332
- Vento v West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 CA
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.