In person (with an interpreter: Polish) For the v Ms E Afriyie (consultant) — 2024

The tribunal found that the respondent had moved away from wholesale business and that there was a genuine redundancy situation affecting the claimant's role. However, the dismissal on 4 March 2022 was unfair because the claimant was not warned or meaningfully consulted, and the redundancy pool was too narrow: Paige Smyth should have been included. The tribunal accepted that Anish Shah and Coralie Anderson were in different jobs, but held that excluding Paige Smyth was outside the range of reasonable responses. It assessed the chance of the claimant being dismissed anyway in a fair process at 50%.

The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.99 ERA 1996 and the detriment complaint under reg 19 MAPLE 1999 failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant took time off for dependants on 1 March 2022 and on other occasions, but found the dismissal and selection for redundancy were not because of that time off. Comments about her absences, including that she was the only employee taking such time off, and the rule about appointments and annual leave were not treated as actionable detriments, and the appointment rule was applied to all employees.

The race harassment and direct race discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the 22 October 2020 exchange, in which Ali Erdal raised his voice and asked Lisa Ayre what the claimant had said, was unwanted conduct but was prompted by his view that the claimant had made a mistake in communicating with a Turkish factory, not by race. It also found that the claimant's role changes were made three times rather than four, that the relevant changes were not less favourable treatment, and that the named comparators were not appropriate.

The indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the respondent did not have the pleaded PCP of requiring employees to attend work without taking family-related time off; the tribunal found the appointment rule was applied to all employees. The equal pay claim failed because the claimant's work was not broadly similar to Mr A Shah's and any differences were of practical importance, although her pay was lower and the respondent proved a material factor defence. Separately, the tribunal found the respondent had failed to give the claimant written particulars of employment throughout her employment and said it would be just and equitable to award four weeks' pay, but the unfair dismissal remedy was left to be dealt with separately. The tribunal also found the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures was not engaged, so there was no uplift.