Ms A Florczak v Newmor Group Limited and 6 others — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for conduct, namely unauthorised absence and repeated failure to wear safety shoes, and that those matters gave the first respondent a fair reason to dismiss under the misconduct authorities it applied. It accepted that the dismissal decision itself fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that the complaints about race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation and unlawful deductions from wages were not made out.

On the race discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the workplace language instruction, grievance handling, home visit, toilets encounter, and January 2019 disciplinary meetings were race-related. It found that Mr Chambers said "English please", not the phrase alleged by the claimant, and that the operational English-language instruction was applied in the manufacturing environment for health and safety reasons and to all staff, not because of race. It also found no improper conduct in the grievance process, the visit to deliver a letter, or the role played by Mrs Rachel Jones or Mrs Hall.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that only the grievance about Mr Chambers amounted to a protected act. The grievances about Mrs Gittins did not complain of Equality Act breaches, and the tribunal found no detriment caused by the protected act in any event. The alleged daily checking, the alleged treatment by Mrs Gittins, and the other matters relied on under this head were rejected.

On unlawful deductions, the tribunal found that the claimant’s pay complaints had been corrected and that the claimed overdraft reimbursement had been paid. It therefore dismissed that claim. The only successful claim was unfair dismissal, but the success was limited to procedure: the appeal was not heard, and the tribunal held that this made the dismissal unfair, although it made no difference to the outcome and therefore produced no compensatory award; the basic award was reduced to zero because of the claimant’s conduct.