Case 3303749/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rene Rajcok First v Glyn Hopkin Limited Second Respondent: Mr Russell Clark — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303749/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Ms L Durrant, Mrs L Salmon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rene Rajcok First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race against Glyn Hopkin Limited and Mr Russell Clark. The tribunal heard evidence over 13 to 15 May 2024 and found that the claimant, a Slovakian service technician, had not proved alleged comments by Mr Durrell about foreigners, nor any race-based less favourable treatment arising from smoking breaks. It also found that the alleged swastika displays in summer and November 2022 were not proved.
The tribunal did find that a swastika had been displayed on the workshop notice board on 21 January 2023 and remained until 23 January 2023, and that the claimant saw it and found it offensive. However, it found that the act was a foolish joke directed at Mr Durrell because of his German music, not conduct related to the claimant’s race or nationality. For that reason, although the tribunal accepted the display was unwanted and could be offensive, it held that the harassment claim failed because the conduct was not related to race.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had carried out an oil change on his wife’s car at work on 21 January 2023 without obtaining authorisation for that chargeable work and without recording it on the job card, contrary to the Respondent’s October 2022 memo on staff internal rates. It accepted that this was the reason the Respondent started disciplinary proceedings and, later, dismissed him summarily on 15 February 2023. The tribunal held that the disciplinary decision and dismissal were not because of race and were not race-related harassment. All complaints were dismissed in full, and because of that no remedy was awarded and the time-limit issues did not need to be resolved.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the factual basis for the alleged comments about foreigners, the alleged repeated swastika displays in summer and November 2022, the smoking-break comparison, and the suggestion that the disciplinary and dismissal decisions were because of race. It found the disciplinary process and dismissal were prompted by the claimant’s breach of the October 2022 staff-vehicle policy, not his Slovakian nationality. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted that the swastika display on 21 to 23 January 2023 was unwanted and offensive, and that the claimant subjectively found it intimidating and humiliating, but held that it was aimed at Mr Durrell and German music, not at Slovakians or the claimant’s race. The alleged racist comments were not proved, the smoking-break point was not made out, and the disciplinary and dismissal complaints did not amount to race-related harassment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Ahmed v Amnesty International
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes
- Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- HM Land Registry v Grant
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Miles v Gilbank and another
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.