Case 3326176/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Busca v Rygor Group Limited Mr Terry Craven Mr Christopher Baker Mr Sean Joyce Mr Ross Heffernan Mr Nigel Clear — 2022
- Case reference
- 3326176/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Tribunal
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms A Brown, Mr F Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Busca
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the outset the tribunal allowed Nigel Clear to be joined as a respondent and extended time for complaints arising from the 5 April 2019 incident, finding it just and equitable to do so. The claimant worked as a technician mechanic for Rygor Group Limited on about £35,000 a year. The tribunal accepted that there were discussions and comments about Brexit, but it did not accept that the claimant had proved the full racist version of those conversations that he alleged.
It found that from time to time colleagues made racially derogatory comments, including references to the claimant as an immigrant, a foreigner, and 'fucking Romanian', and it found that Nigel Clear called the claimant 'Romanian cunt' and assaulted him on 5 April 2019. The tribunal also found that after the complaint some white British colleagues were quieter or ignored the claimant, but it did not accept that he had been given unreasonable workloads, denied leave pay, forced back to night shifts, or subjected to constant unfair criticism.
The tribunal held that the treatment amounted to a serious breach of contract and that the claimant resigned in response, so he was constructively and unfairly dismissed. It upheld direct race discrimination and harassment, and it upheld victimisation in part: the 9 April oral grievance and the 17 September written grievance were protected acts, and the employer's response, including the failure to make proper enquiries and to take a statement from Sahid Hussain, was found to be detrimental. The unpaid wages complaint was dismissed, and the judgment ended with directions for a remedy hearing rather than a final award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found a serious breach of contract and held that the claimant resigned in response, so the dismissal was constructive and unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found direct race discrimination in the 5 April 2019 assault and racial abuse, and in the later treatment by some colleagues after the complaint. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found unwanted conduct related to race which created an offensive environment, including racially derogatory language used from time to time. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld in part: the tribunal treated the 9 April oral grievance and the 17 September written grievance as protected acts and found detriments in the employer's response and investigation. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed; the tribunal was not satisfied that wages were unlawfully withheld and the evidence indicated the claimant had been paid for the relevant leave day(s). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- just and equitable extension of time
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
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.