Ramaunus Marcinkevicius v ATE UK Ltd — 2023

Ramaunus Marcinkevicius, a Lithuanian production operative, worked for ATE UK Ltd from 1 September 2021 until he was summarily dismissed on 11 November 2022. The tribunal identified the issues as whether he had been bullied or harassed at work at least in part because of race or nationality, and whether his dismissal was tainted by race discrimination. It noted that he had less than two years’ service and that the case before it was a race discrimination claim.

The tribunal found there was nothing to support the allegation of sustained bullying and harassment. It said the claim form contained only a bare assertion, the claimant gave no oral evidence and did not provide a witness statement despite an order to do so, and the respondent’s documentary and video evidence provided an adequate explanation of the incidents complained of. The tribunal also said there were time issues with the harassment aspect of the case.

On the dismissal incident, the CCTV showed the claimant being teased by a colleague about a piece of paper, punching the colleague, and the colleague then kicking him. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the employer treated the two men differently because the claimant instigated the violence, did not attend the disciplinary hearing or work the day before, showed no insight or remorse, and had a previous warning, whereas the colleague had eight years’ unblemished service, was remorseful, and was not the instigator. The tribunal found those were the reasons for the different outcomes.

The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence from which it could find that race played any part in the treatment complained of, either in the workplace incidents or in the dismissal. It held that the claimant had not met the first stage of the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, referred to the direct discrimination definition in section 13, and said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It also held that the claimant had breached tribunal orders and that it would not be fair to adjourn the hearing; it therefore said the Rule 37 strike-out grounds were engaged. The final judgment recorded that the claim was dismissed.