Case 2300442/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300442/2019
- Decision date
- 27 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J Jerram, Mr G Henderson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms C Beckford, was a black British Revenue and Licensing Officer and Unite representative at Transport for London. The tribunal heard evidence that a number of emails about her were rude and inappropriate, and it accepted that she had a genuine sense of hurt and upset. It also found that her grievances in 2011 and 2018 were protected acts for Equality Act purposes, but that the 2014 grievances were directed to trade union treatment rather than race or sex discrimination.
On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that the 11 May 2016 email discussing the claimant's sickness absence was unnecessary and distasteful, but it found no evidence that the comment was because of race or sex. It also found that the Make A Difference award delay was caused by Mr Lingham's late referral, not by Nick Aldworth or Matthew Wilson. The 13 March 2017 building-pass decision was made by Mr Hawkes for pass-policy reasons and not because of race or sex, and the claimant's comparator evidence was not accepted as showing less favourable treatment.
The indirect discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that grievance chairs were appointed in accordance with TfL's policy, which normally used managers within the department rather than entirely external individuals. It found no evidence of collusion or that this practice put black employees at a particular disadvantage. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown the 2014 grievances were protected acts, and it did not accept that Mr Hawkes singled her out or belittled her at the 30 October 2018 framework meeting.
For the trade union detriment claim, the tribunal found that in January 2015 the claimant's work was not properly covered while she carried out union duties and that this was capable of being a detriment caused by trade union activity. However, it held that this complaint was out of time, that it was not part of a series of similar acts, and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to contact ACAS within time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim covering the 11 May 2016 sickness-absence email, the 22 July 2016 Make A Difference award delay, and the 13 March 2017 building-pass issue. The tribunal found the conduct was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The final judgment records that the direct discrimination claim on grounds of sex was not upheld, but the reasons section does not separately analyse sex and focuses on the same incidents as the race discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim based on the respondent appointing grievance chairs who were not external to TfL. The tribunal found the grievance process followed policy and no group disadvantage to black employees was shown. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Protected acts were accepted only for the 27 May 2011 and 25 October 2018 grievances. The 2014 grievances were not protected acts, and the 30 October 2018 meeting incident was not found to be because of any protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Only the January 2015 failure to cover the claimant's work was found capable of being a trade union detriment, but the complaint was out of time and it was not reasonably practicable for it to be presented earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.146 TULR(C)A 1992
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport and others [1999] IRLR 572 (HL)
- Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 9311 (CA)
- Bahl v Law Society [2003] IRLR 640
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2010] EWCA Civ 1279
- B v A [2010] IRLR 400
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054
- University College London v Brown [2021] IRLR 200
- Yewdall v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions UKEAT/0071/05/TM
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.