Ms. Z Blaszczak v Quorn Country Foods Limited — 2021

Ms Z Blaszczak brought a direct race discrimination claim against Quorn Country Foods Limited based on six incidents involving her line manager, Simon Ralph. The tribunal found that the claimant worked in a factory with a largely foreign-national workforce and that Mr Ralph was an indiscriminate shouter who became angry when production slowed or mistakes were made, but it concluded that the treatment complained of was not because of the claimant's Polish nationality or any alleged lack of English proficiency.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Ralph shouted at the claimant on occasions in May 2019 and on 19 September 2019, and that he called her lazy and useless in response to production errors. It did not accept the more serious embellishments in the claimant's evidence, including allegations that he called her blind, idiot or handicapped, or that he threw products at her. On the tribunal's findings, the conduct was prompted by perceived mistakes and the effect on production, not by race. It also rejected the allegations that he mocked her English, finding only that he asked whether she was saying she wanted to go home when she said 'I go home', and it rejected the labels incident because he gave her one label in response to a singular request.

The August 2019 disciplinary warning was also found not to be discriminatory. The tribunal held that it was prompted by observations from Rafel Boinski and Mr Ralph's own view that the claimant worked slowly and made mistakes, not by a complaint from Derek Martin. It found that the claimant had an opportunity to respond, understood the meeting, and was not forced to sign the record. Joyce was not an appropriate comparator because she was still in her probationary period and being trained.

The tribunal further found that the claimant's complaint about Monika Gruszczyk was not ignored. Mr Ralph told her she could put the matter in writing as a grievance, and the tribunal found no basis for inferring race discrimination in that response. The claim failed in its entirety and was dismissed; no remedy was awarded, and because the merits failed the tribunal did not need to determine the separate jurisdiction/time limit issue.