In person (attending the tribunal) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought race discrimination complaints arising from the respondent’s investigation into the recording of UNISON trade union time in late 2015 and early 2016, and from a later office move at Milton Keynes in September 2018. The tribunal recorded that the claimant described herself as white/black Caribbean and also had a disability, but no disability discrimination claim was pursued. The tribunal dismissed the race complaints in full.

On the first complaint, the tribunal held that the events complained of were out of time for the purposes of section 123 Equality Act 2010. It found that the last alleged act in that sequence was no later than the management advice given in writing on 3 October 2016, that the claim was not issued until 20 January 2019, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It said the claimant knew tribunals existed and had general awareness of discrimination claims, but gave no credible explanation for the delay.

In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that Inspector Gardner became concerned after looking at the duty management records and that Superintendent Johns spoke to Ken Cooney about the bus trip and the recording of the stewards’ time. It also found that the disciplinary fact-finding went beyond the 1 December 2015 event because of concerns about other UNISON activities, and that Peter Crane was not a proper comparator because the relevant decision-makers did not know of him or his circumstances.

On the office-move complaint, the tribunal found that property services planned the move around the claimant’s reasonable adjustments, including her voice-activated software, chair and desk, and that she was moved first into the canteen with mitigations and later to another room. It found that David Smith and Patricia Herkes were being accommodated for their own disability-related needs, and that the relevant decision-makers were not aware of their race. The tribunal concluded that the claimant’s case on this issue was in substance about disability treatment, but there was no disability discrimination claim before it, so the race discrimination claim failed.