Case 2204640/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204640/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were weekend postal workers at the respondent's Mount Pleasant Mail Centre. Their claims arose from fire alarm test arrangements on 31 January and 7 March 2021, a letter sent to Mr Ahmed on 26 March 2021, and, for Mr Ellahi, the ending of his temporary Deputy Manager status. The tribunal dismissed all claims.
For Mr Ahmed, the tribunal found that the 26 March 2021 letter referring to an external criminal case was a detrimental act and had the effect required for harassment, but it found no evidence that the letter was because of, or related to, race. His indirect race discrimination claim failed because the respondent had not applied a single uniform PCP to the two proposed groups. His Part-time Workers Regulations claim failed because the comparator group he relied on were not full-time workers within the Regulations.
For Mr Ellahi, the tribunal accepted that Mr Bal ended his temporary Deputy Manager status because, despite coaching and support, he had not delivered what was required or shown suitability for the role. It found no evidence that race influenced that decision. His health and safety detriment claim failed because there was no detriment on 31 January 2021 and the statutory elements were not made out for 7 March 2021. Several claims also failed on limitation grounds, and no remedies were awarded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Mr Ahmed's race-related harassment claim concerned the 26 March 2021 letter. The tribunal found the letter had the effect of creating an intimidating, humiliating and hostile environment, but found no evidential basis that it was related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Mr Ahmed's direct race discrimination claim concerned the 26 March 2021 letter. The tribunal found no evidence that race influenced the wording or sending of the letter, or that a comparator of different race would have been treated differently. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Mr Ahmed's indirect race discrimination claim concerned working-hour arrangements on 31 January and 7 March 2021. The tribunal found there was no single uniform PCP applied across the proposed comparator groups and also held the claim failed on time grounds. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Mr Ahmed's Part-time Workers Regulations claim failed because the weekend workers described as full-time were not full-time workers within the Regulations, but part-time employees working longer hours. The claim also failed on time grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Mr Ellahi's direct race discrimination claim concerned the ending of his temporary Deputy Manager status. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the decision was based on performance and engagement with the role, and found no evidence that race played any part. The claim also failed on time grounds. |
Legal tests applied
21 references- Equality Act 2010 s13
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Onu v Akwiwu
- Equality Act 2010 s19
- Equality Act 2010 s23(1)
- Equality Act 2010 s26
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011 paras 7.9 to 7.11
- Equality Act 2010 ss39(2)(d) and 40(1)(a)
- Equality Act 2010 s212(1)
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Equality Act 2010 s136
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Equality Act 2010 s123
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s44(1A)(a)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s48(3) and s48(4)
- Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 reg 5
- Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 reg 8
- Advocate General for Scotland v Barton
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.