In person For the v Ms B Breslin — 2022

The claimant brought a single claim of direct race discrimination about the respondent’s failure to pay additional travelling time after his transfer from Hertford East to Bishops Stortford under the PTRR policy. The tribunal found that a decision not to pay the allowance was made in May 2017, so the claim presented on 29 September 2021 was outside the three-month time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It considered the claimant’s later grievance, ACAS Early Conciliation, and his period of sickness absence, but concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time.

In reaching that time-limit decision, the tribunal noted that the claimant had not known until January 2021 that two white colleagues had received travelling time, and that he then raised the issue promptly with Mr Collins and through grievance. It also noted that the claimant had union support, but said there was no adequate explanation for why he could not have brought the claim, taken legal advice, or researched the limitation period earlier. The tribunal also considered that the respondent could be prejudiced by the age of the events and gaps in record keeping.

If it was wrong on time limits, the tribunal went on to consider the merits. It accepted that the claimant was treated less favourably because he was not paid travel allowance, and that the non-payment breached the respondent’s PTRR policy and the claimant’s contract. It did not accept the claimant’s two named comparators as appropriate because they lived in different locations and one was female, but it considered a hypothetical white male comparator with the claimant’s material circumstances.

On the reason for the treatment, the tribunal found that the claimant had established a prima facie case, but the respondent had shown that the failure to pay was not because of race. It found the principal explanation was a management oversight and poor record keeping, including the claimant’s home station being recorded incorrectly as Tottenham Hale, and it said race did not have a significant influence on the respondent’s decision. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim, vacated the listed remedy hearing, and made no award.