Case 3200052/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms C McIntyre (2) Mr O Rahman v Ford Retail Limited T/A TrustFord — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200052/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels, Mr L Bowman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms C McIntyre (2) Mr O Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard joint claims by Ms McIntyre and Mr Rahman concerning the Respondent's relationship-at-work policy, the scrutiny of call logs, shift changes, pregnancy-related matters, grievance handling and the 2 December 2019 meeting. It found that the policy was not being properly implemented in the contact centre before April 2019 and that the later enforcement began after Ms McIntyre's March 2019 complaint about Lorraine Smith, Tia Smith and Joe Collins.
On Ms McIntyre's race discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that Ms Smith singled her and Mr Rahman out for scrutiny of their calls and imposed a restriction on work-related contact, and it was critical of some later handling of the relationship-at-work policy and the 2 December 2019 meeting. However, it found those actions were prompted by Ms Smith's reaction to Ms McIntyre's grievance and protected disclosure, not by race. The tribunal rejected the other race allegations, including those concerning shift changes, Ms Smith's promotion, pregnancy-related treatment and the failure to discipline Ms Smith.
The tribunal found that Ms McIntyre had in fact been subjected to detriments on grounds of her protected disclosure in relation to the call-log scrutiny and the restrictions on contact during working hours. It nevertheless dismissed that complaint because it was out of time, held that it should have been presented by 27 September 2019, and found it was reasonably practicable for her to bring it in time. No monetary award was made.
Mr Rahman's race discrimination claim was also dismissed. The tribunal rejected his complaints about annual leave, grievance investigation, emergency leave counselling and the 2 December 2019 meeting, noting that although some aspects of the Respondent's handling were criticised as heavy-handed or perfunctory, race was not a factor in the treatment complained of.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | C1 alleged direct race discrimination arising from enforcement of the relationship-at-work policy, call-log scrutiny, shift changes, pregnancy-related treatment and the 2 December 2019 meeting. The tribunal found the actions complained of were not because of race, but were driven by Ms Smith's reaction to C1's grievance and protected disclosure. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found as a matter of fact that C1 was subjected to detriments on the ground of making a protected disclosure, including scrutiny of call logs and restrictions on contact during working hours. It dismissed the complaint because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for C1 to have brought it sooner. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | C2 alleged direct race discrimination in relation to annual leave, grievance handling, emergency leave and the 2 December 2019 meeting. The tribunal criticised some of the Respondent's handling as heavy-handed or perfunctory, but found race was not a factor in those decisions. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- s.123 EqA 2010
- Aziz v FDA
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link)
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- British Coal Corp v Keeble
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
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.