Case 3312346/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Zireva v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3312346/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms C Baggs, Ms F Tankard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Zireva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an African man from Zimbabwe and a British citizen, applied for a Grade 9 Signaller role in Link 2. While he was absent through illness and in hospital, recruitment emails were sent to his work email account asking him to confirm attendance at interview. His application was then treated as withdrawn for failure to confirm attendance. When he contacted Mr Wells after the interviews had taken place, Mr Wells did not arrange a late interview and used the phrase "I am not your keeper". The tribunal found that the phrase, in itself and in context, did not bear racial animus.
On the late interview allegation, the tribunal found that Mr Wells had authority to arrange a late interview but did not do so because the application had been withdrawn, interviews had already taken place, and the recruitment process had been followed. A white British signaller, CK, had also been refused a rearranged interview after being unable to attend for reasons beyond his control. The tribunal found the comparator evidence did not support the claimant's case and that rumours or unverified comments did not displace the proven facts.
On the appointment of CS before the grievance was completed, the tribunal found that the decision was made when a second potential Grade 9 vacancy had arisen, leaving a possible remedy available if the claimant's grievance succeeded. The reasons for appointing CS were found to relate to the impact on other candidates and the financial impact of not filling the role, not race.
On the grievance and appeal decisions, the tribunal accepted that aspects of the process could be criticised and that the grievance took too long. It found, however, that Mr Mahy and Mr Collins did not reach their conclusions because of race. Although Mr Collins did not pursue comments said to have been made on the "grapevine", the tribunal accepted that he investigated the appeal to the best of his ability and found that the grievance appeal decision was not on the grounds of race. All complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Allegation that Mr Wells' failure on 1 February 2018 to arrange a late interview for the Grade 9 post was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that the respondent's May 2018 decision to appoint CS to the Grade 9 post before the claimant's grievance outcome was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude the decision was because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that the respondent's decision not to fully uphold the claimant's grievance against Mr Wells was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the respondent showed that race was not a factor in the grievance and appeal decisions. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- direct discrimination
- burden of proof
- hypothetical comparator
- less favourable treatment
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.