Ms Dagmar Capandova v Biffa Polymers Ltd — 2020

The claimant, a Czech employee on Biffa's C shift, said she was subjected to race-related comments by Mr Piatek and sexual conduct by Mr Cywinski over a period from 2017 to 2018. The tribunal accepted that the case involved a cumulative course of conduct and, so far as any part of the complaint was outside the ordinary time limit, held it just and equitable to deal with it. It also noted that the claimant was the only Czech worker on her shift and that the surrounding workplace context mattered to how the conduct was experienced.

On the race harassment allegations, the tribunal accepted that Mr Piatek made comments such as 'Hey Czech, you here again? What are you wanting here? Don't worry you are not going to be here long' and used the term 'gypsy' to the claimant. It found those remarks were unwanted and, in context, created an intimidating and hostile environment. The tribunal treated that conduct as harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, not as direct race discrimination.

On the sex harassment allegations, the tribunal accepted that Mr Cywinski made sexual comments and messages, including the 'injection' exchange, invited her to a party and to his home, and later engaged in physical conduct including touching her breasts and unzipping his trousers in front of her. It found that some of the conduct may have been meant as a bawdy joke, but the sexual element was plain and the conduct became unwanted by the summer of 2018. The tribunal held that this conduct amounted to harassment under section 26. It did not find that the claimant's wider allegations against him were all proved, but it accepted the sexual harassment allegations to the extent described in the reasons.

The tribunal rejected the direct discrimination and harassment allegations against Mr Brunton and Ms Wright. It found they were dealing with serious complaints and trying to support and investigate, not acting because of race or sex, and that there was no racial content in what they said or did. It also accepted that someone had put excrement in the lunchbox, laxatives in the coffee, alcohol in the locker, urine in the boots and had disturbed the bag, but held that those acts could not be linked to race or sex. This judgment did not decide remedy; the tribunal said remedy, if needed, would have to be dealt with later.