Kami Houllier v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2021

The claimant, who identified as Black Caribbean, brought complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race against Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd. The complaints concerned replacement safety shoes after a house fire, sickness absence and an absence review meeting, alleged written cautions for missed tasks and mobile phone use, alleged use of the N word by supervisor Andy Lambert, and a black divider in the claimant's rest area pod. The tribunal dismissed both complaints.

On the safety shoes allegations, the tribunal found that Mr Lambert did not initially realise the claimant had lost his safety trainers in the fire, but ordered size 13 safety boots when he became aware on 24 June 2021 and those boots were delivered on 6 July 2021. It found the claimant wore them, complained once on 7 July 2021 that they hurt, and did not later complain to Mr Lambert. The tribunal found no deliberate failure to provide safety shoes and no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred.

On sickness absence, task completion and mobile phone use, the tribunal found that the claimant was not issued with formal written cautions or warnings as alleged. It found the claimant had met absence trigger points and that Mr Lambert had also contacted HR when he believed white comparator Philip Lidford had triggered the absence process. Discussions about missed fixings, work quality and phone use were found to be ordinary management interactions or informal counselling, not formal cautions, and the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race.

The tribunal rejected the harassment allegations that Mr Lambert used or mouthed the N word on 7 July 2021 or in late February or early March 2022. It accepted Mr Lambert's denial, found the claimant's evidence inconsistent and unreliable on these matters, and noted that the claimant had not raised the alleged slur in his grievance, grievance appeal, or original claim form.

The tribunal found, on balance, that the claimant's rest area pod probably contained one darker or black divider for a short period in October 2020. It found that the pod had been assembled before the claimant started, was shared with a white employee, and that the darker panel arose from the use of available materials for temporary Covid-related dividers. The tribunal held that the panel was unwanted but not related to race, did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment, was not a detriment for direct discrimination, and in any event the complaint was approximately 17 months out of time with no just and equitable basis to extend time. No remedy was awarded because all complaints were dismissed.