Mr KW Perera (Legal Assistant). For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal heard the respondent's strike-out and deposit application on 1 December 2021 without oral evidence. It considered the pleadings, the list of issues and contemporaneous investigation, disciplinary and appeal notes. It also recorded that route-related allegations had previously been excluded from the pleaded case and no amendment had been made. Although the claim form included unfair dismissal and race discrimination, this preliminary decision only disposed of specified discrimination and harassment allegations.

On the direct race discrimination allegations, the tribunal compared the claimant's case with the contemporaneous notes and records. It noted evidence that other drivers were also subject to truck checks, uniform conversations, limited or unreliable satellite navigation availability, recalls mid-route when items were missing, and route 88 training records showing one day's training and one day on the route. It held that the claimant had not pleaded 'something more' than a difference in treatment, had not shown a reasonably arguable continuing act from 2018 to the appeal hearing, and struck out allegations 2.1(ii), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xv)(A) as having no reasonable prospects of success.

On harassment, the tribunal struck out allegations 2.2(a)(ii) and 2.2(a)(iii) concerning the 10 September 2019 accident investigation and the later allegation said to have been made to get the claimant dismissed. It held that the claimant had not shown how those matters were related to race. The ruling left the remaining direct discrimination and harassment allegations, including the dismissal and appeal allegations, to continue, and the judge noted that if the strike-out decision were wrong the specified allegations would have attracted £50 deposits each.