Mrs Rachel Williams v London International Exhibition Centre plc t/as ExCeL London Heard: East London Hearing Centre (by video hearing) — 2021

Mrs Rachel Williams was employed by London International Exhibition Centre Plc t/as ExCeL London from 24 October 2016 as a Business Development Manager for CentrEd and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 December 2018. The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996 because the requirement for the CentrEd BDM work had ceased or diminished. It accepted that CentrEd had not met the financial contribution expected, that the claimant's role was dedicated to that part of the business, and that the respondent was entitled to treat her role as a pool of one.

On fairness, the tribunal held that warning and consultation were adequate. It found that the claimant was told she was at risk on 4 October 2018, that there were five consultation meetings after that, and that the respondent explained its rationale and considered alternative employment. The tribunal accepted the respondent's view that further capital investment was not justified without increased business, and it concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The claimant pursued race and sex discrimination claims based on a series of alleged acts between 2017 and 2018, including flexible working issues, room-booking disputes, GRG-related events, comments by managers, exclusions from meetings and away days, and the dismissal itself. The tribunal held that 29 of the 31 substantive discrimination complaints were out of time. Applying s.123 EqA 2010 and the stop-the-clock effect of ACAS early conciliation, it treated acts before 13 December 2018 as out of time and refused to extend time as just and equitable. It found that the dismissal-related allegations were the only complaints in time, but they also failed on the merits.

On the merits of race and sex discrimination, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment and no sufficient causal link to race or sex. It rejected the claimant's case on flexible working, room-booking disputes, the GRG allegations, the comments relied on, the board lunch and awayday complaints, and the dismissal allegation. It held that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy rather than discriminatory treatment, and that the evidence did not support an inference that race or sex was a material factor.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that she had done a protected act before the alleged detriments, because her references to unfair treatment did not amount to allegations of Equality Act contraventions. It found that she did not raise race discrimination until her appeal meeting on 20 December 2018, after the relevant events, and accordingly dismissed the victimisation complaint. All claims were dismissed.