Mr S Kinkela v Bouygues E&S Solutions Limited — 2022

Mr Kinkela, described by the tribunal as a Black person of African descent aged 50, worked for Bouygues E & S Solutions Ltd as a Mobile Electrical Craftsperson from 29 November 2019 until he resigned on 10 July 2020. The tribunal heard complaints of race and age discrimination, race- and age-related harassment, victimisation and unlawful deductions from wages. It applied the Equality Act burden of proof authorities in Igen Ltd v Wong, Madarassy v Nomura International plc and Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester, and referred to the time-limit provisions in section 123 Equality Act 2010. The judgment also records that the unfair dismissal point was not a live claim because the claimant did not have sufficient service.

On the race complaints, the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the tools issue, the Welwyn Garden City wall sockets job, the City of London Academy complaint, the thermometer incident, the ESA quotation issue and the probation review. It found no primary facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred and rejected the alleged race-specific remarks said to have been made by Mr Harvey or Mr Neal. It also found that the claimant's grievance emails and meetings in May 2020 did not establish racial abuse, and that the respondent's handling of the grievance and investigation was not shown to be racially discriminatory.

The tribunal likewise rejected the age discrimination and age-related harassment allegations based on the alleged comment that the claimant was 'too old' and 'very slow', finding that the remarks were not made and that the respondent's concerns were about speed, communication and quotation procedure rather than age. It dismissed victimisation because the pleaded detriments were not proved and no causal link to the protected acts was shown. On wages, the tribunal held that the Bristol expenses claim failed because expenses are excluded from wages under section 27 ERA 1996 and the claimant had not proved that receipts were submitted or that the money was properly payable. The judgment notes that holiday pay had been mentioned in the particulars but no evidence was heard and it was not pursued in submissions. The final judgment dismissed all complaints.