Mr A F Nikiza v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2021

The tribunal held that the allegations, apart from those arising after December 2018, were presented outside the primary time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time. It considered the delay, the absence of retained documentation, and the respondent's lack of identified efforts to contact relevant former witnesses, and concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured allowing the allegations to proceed.

On the non-selection allegations, the tribunal found facts sufficient to shift the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. The claimant had academic qualifications, acting management experience, internal project and award achievements, and had passed objective benchmark stages. The respondent did not provide evidence explaining why he scored lower in the subjective interview assessments or why the successful candidates were preferred. The tribunal therefore upheld direct race discrimination in relation to the 2015/2016 and 2017 selection exercises.

The other allegations concerning comments or actions by managers, overtime delay, grievance handling, rehabilitation arrangements, occupational health matters, and access to a statement were dismissed. The tribunal found, depending on the allegation, that the facts were not made out, that the treatment was not less favourable, or that any conduct was not because of race. The indirect discrimination complaint about handling complaints under the grievance policy failed because no particular disadvantage connected with race was established. The complaints of harassment and victimisation were also dismissed. Remedy was adjourned.