Mr D Renton, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal accepted that the claimant, Mr Dalbir Ahluwalia, and the comparator, Ms Paula Taylor, held the same Senior Finance Business Partner role and that their work was like work and of equal value. Ms Taylor later applied for a lateral move into a route services vacancy and, after HR approval, her salary increased to £56,000 from January 2020. The claimant had been regraded to Band 3C with pay of £51,156, having previously earned £48,410. The case focused on whether the claimant’s pay, and the handling of his grievances, amounted to victimisation, race discrimination, or breach of the equality clause.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal held that the claimant’s case was in substance about an omission to give him a pay rise, rather than a detriment caused by race. It found that Ms Taylor was not a proper comparator for that purpose because she had applied for and secured the lateral move, while the claimant had not applied. The tribunal accepted Mr Rogan’s explanation that Ms Taylor’s increase was based on her abilities, skills, experience and the discretion available under the pay policy, and it found that the claimant had no basis for an equivalent increase at that time.

On indirect race discrimination, the claimant relied on internal vacancy and pay-discretion PCPs and said British Asian staff were disadvantaged. The tribunal found no statistical evidence showing that British Asian employees applying for lateral moves were less likely to obtain a pay increase, and it held that the claimant himself suffered no disadvantage because he did not apply for the role. It added that the respondent’s salary band and discretionary structure was likely to be a proportionate means of recruitment and retention in any event.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant’s written grievance of 13 May 2020 was not a protected act because it did not amount to an allegation of discrimination, although his email of 19 March 2021 was a protected act because it referred to race. It rejected the alleged detriments based on delay, the absence of an outcome, Ms Modeste’s criticism of the investigation, and the assertion that the institutional racism grievance was ignored. The tribunal found that the grievance process produced outcomes at successive stages, that the delays were explained, and that the respondent did actively engage with the institutional racism allegations by appointing external and internal reviewers.

The equal pay claim also failed. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s s.69 Equality Act 2010 material factor defence, holding that the difference between the claimant’s pay and Ms Taylor’s pay was explained by Ms Taylor’s lateral application, her strong performance, ability, skill and broader experience, and by the operation of the pay rules. It found that Ms Taylor’s sex played no part in the decision, and it dismissed the breach of equality clause claim. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.