Case 2602716/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Obari v Unipart Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602716/2021
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- Midlands East Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr A Beveridge, Mr D Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Obari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Obari brought four claims of direct race discrimination relying on Egyptian citizenship as the protected characteristic. The allegations were that Mr Carter refused permission to travel to Egypt, that holiday pay was withheld, that Mr Gowdy asked whether he was a British citizen, and that there was delay in the grievance process. The tribunal found the respondent had introduced a COVID-19 travel policy covering red- and amber-list countries, that Egypt was on the red list in mid-2021, and that the claimant knew of the policy.
On the holiday refusal, the tribunal found Mr Carter first approved the claimant’s leave extension before he knew Egypt was red-listed, then withdrew approval once he became aware of the policy position. It held that the claimant had not re-applied with evidence of any essential travel need at the time of the decision, so he was treated in the same way as others wishing to travel to a red-list country. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s later grievance materials were not before Mr Carter when he made the decision.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant’s absence was booked as unauthorised unpaid because travel to a red-list country without approval was contrary to the policy and staff had been warned of that consequence. On the nationality allegation, the tribunal accepted Mr Gowdy’s evidence that he did not ask whether the claimant was a British citizen, and found that a question about nationality was asked only as part of deciding whether there was an essential reason to travel.
On the grievance complaint, the tribunal found the process took about 10 weeks at most and that any delay was minimal and explained by ordinary administrative matters, including the claimant’s absence abroad and the need for senior management involvement on appeal. The tribunal noted that the appeal outcome reinstated the claimant’s holiday pay, which was paid in the December 2021 payroll run. It concluded that none of the four allegations amounted to unlawful direct race discrimination and all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Allegation that Mr Carter refused the claimant’s annual leave request to travel to Egypt; the tribunal found the claimant had not provided evidence of an essential travel need before the decision and was treated the same as others seeking to travel to a red-list country. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that holiday pay was not paid while the absence was recorded as unauthorised unpaid; the tribunal found this followed the respondent’s red-list travel policy and the warning given to staff that unauthorised travel would be treated that way. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that Mr Gowdy asked whether the claimant was a British citizen; the tribunal accepted that a question about nationality was asked as part of information-gathering for the travel decision, but not the specific question alleged. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation of delay in the grievance process; the tribunal found any delay was minimal, around 10 weeks at most, and explained by ordinary grievance and appeal administration rather than race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- South Wales Police Authority v Johnson
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.