Ms N Khosa v BBK Group — 2024

The tribunal listed the case for direct race discrimination and unauthorised deductions from wages. The ET1 alleged that Ms Khosa had been recruited as a driver on the basis that shifts would start no earlier than 6 a.m., but when she attended for work on 19 December 2022 she was told she would have to work shifts starting at 4 a.m., sent home after disputing that position, and not paid for that attendance. She alleged that this treatment occurred because she is Indian.

The Respondent did not initially file a timely ET3, and the first ET3 was rejected. A further ET3 was sent on the morning of the hearing, but the tribunal said it would not have been open to it to regard that document. The Claimant did not attend the hearing, and there was no explanation on the file for her absence. The tribunal considered rule 47, decided not to adjourn, and proceeded in the Claimant's absence.

Applying sections 13 and 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal noted that the burden remained on the Claimant to prove facts from which it could conclude that there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of race. For the wages claim, the tribunal noted that the Claimant needed evidence supporting entitlement to payment for 19 December 2022 and evidence of the amount due. Because she did not attend and provided no documentary evidence, the tribunal found that neither claim was made out.

The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed, and the complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed. The tribunal noted that if the Claimant had a good explanation for failing to attend, it would be open to her to seek reconsideration of the judgment.