Case 3301191/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L. Stafford First v PSA Retail UK Limited Second Respondent: Go Motor Retailing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301191/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr. C. Juden, Mr. F. Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L. Stafford First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first determined that PSA Retail UK Limited was the claimant's employer and dismissed Go Motor Retailing Limited from the proceedings. The claimant had been employed from 14 February 2019, became a General Sales Manager in August 2019, and was dismissed on 16 November 2020 after the Heathrow site redundancy process that began in October 2020.
On the detriment complaint under ss.47-48 ERA 1996, the tribunal found that Tim Pickering did not ignore, ostracise, or stop communicating with the claimant after he became an employee representative. Because the alleged conduct was not proved, the detriment complaint failed.
On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was mixed race and that the remarks "You don't look like one to me" and "coffee and cream" were made and were related to race. It also found that the comments were unwanted and had the effect of violating dignity and creating an intimidating and hostile environment, but the claim was outside the s.123 Equality Act time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal also considered the failure to appoint the claimant to the GM (Hayes) role and the Junior Auditor role. It accepted that the burden of proof shifted for the GM (Hayes) decision because the process should have been fairer, but found that Tim Pickering's reason was that he regarded the role as a like-for-like alternative for Lawrence Edwards and did not act because of race. For the Junior Auditor role, the tribunal found that Sharon McLean had a non-discriminatory reason: she was not satisfied that the claimant had sufficient Kerridge experience. The race discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under ss.47-48 ERA 1996 that the claimant suffered detriment because he had been elected as an employee representative in the redundancy consultation. The tribunal found Tim Pickering did not ignore, ostracise, or stop communicating with him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Included the dismissal and the alleged failure to appoint the claimant to the GM (Hayes) role and the Junior Auditor role. The tribunal found non-discriminatory reasons for the staffing decisions and rejected the race discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the comments alleged against Tim Pickering, Darren Roberts, and Lawrence Edwards were made and were race-related and unwanted, but held the harassment complaint was out of time and refused to extend time just and equitably. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 47 ERA 1996 employee representative detriment
- section 48 ERA 1996 detriment complaint
- section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- section 23 Equality Act 2010 comparison of cases
- section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen Limited v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
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.