Dr R Ibakakombo (representative) For the v Mr R Byrom (solicitor) — 2019

Ms Yedu brought complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation against Telecom Service Centres Ltd t/a Webhelp UK. The tribunal heard evidence over several January and February 2021 hearings, found aspects of the Claimant’s evidence unreliable, and generally preferred the Respondent’s witnesses. The harassment-related complaints were withdrawn during closing submissions and recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

On the locker complaint, the tribunal found that the Claimant was not allocated a locker until after she raised the matter in grievance proceedings, but that there was an ongoing shortage of lockers across a diverse workforce and that the normal process was to ask reception for a locker. It found that the Claimant did not prove facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, because she did not establish that white colleagues were allocated lockers in materially different circumstances or that her own lack of a locker was because she was black. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the later audit and allocation process showed discriminatory treatment.

On overtime, the tribunal found that the Claimant had worked overtime on 26 April 2019 and that there had been repeated delay and confusion in dealing with her queries, including because the relevant managers changed and the Teleopti record was overwritten by a multi-skilling entry. It accepted that she was not contractually entitled to enhanced overtime until she had worked 40 hours in a week, and held that the delay in resolving the issue was not shown to be because of race. The tribunal applied the Equality Act burden of proof approach and held that the burden did not shift on the evidence before it.

The tribunal also considered the events of 19 November 2019. It found that all staff were told to remove coats and bags because of a VIP visit, that Ms Platts asked the Claimant to remove her coat and bag, that the Claimant refused, and that the Claimant then left work to change without permission and was marked AWOL. It rejected the allegations that Ms Platts acted aggressively, disconnected equipment, or treated the Claimant differently because she was black. It further found that Mr Ghulam’s fact-finding meeting, Mr Semley’s grievance outcome, Mr Barquero’s appeal decision, and Ms Hawke’s handling of the appeal documents were not detriments imposed because the Claimant had made protected acts. No compensation was awarded because all live claims failed.