Ms S Ismail (Counsel). For the v Mr G Griffiths-Jones (Senior HR and Legal Adviser). — 2021

The claimant, Mr M A Evans, brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination arising from his dismissal by Genzyme Limited in February 2019. A notice pay point was no longer pursued at the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence about the respondent's investigation into incorrect sampling in K-30, the claimant's prior final written warning from June 2018, and the subsequent disciplinary and appeal process.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 19 May 2019 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was dealing with his father's terminal illness, but held that this did not prevent a timely claim. It also found that he knew of the right to bring a claim, did not seek specialist legal advice in time, and could not rely on incorrect advice from Tony Hope that he had five years to claim. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore out of time and not within jurisdiction.

If wrong on limitation, the tribunal said it would have found the dismissal unfair. It considered the investigation incomplete because only some of the technicians involved were interviewed, no investigation report was produced, and the matter looked more like a training or capability issue than misconduct. It also found that the claimant's answers were not adequately recorded. However, it noted that there would still have been significant issues about causation and contribution, including the terms of the Standard Operating Procedure and the claimant's inability to explain how the scoop he used could comply with it.

On race discrimination, the tribunal held that the complaint was out of time but extended time on a just and equitable basis, noting that the delay was about one month and the cogency of the evidence had not been affected. The claim nevertheless failed because the claimant did not establish facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. The alleged gollywog incident was not raised during employment, the disciplinary process, or the appeal, was not pleaded in the ET1, and involved no one who had a role in the dismissal decision. The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal or appeal was tainted by race, and all claims were dismissed.