In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal proceeded on the basis that the protected characteristic relied on was race/colour rather than nationality. It found that the claimant had been employed as a Machine Minder, but that the respondent’s training arrangements were largely informal and poorly structured, and that managers failed to manage his expectations about who would train him and over what period.

On the main factual disputes, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was moved to other work at times and that some of the interactions with colleagues were unwelcome to him, but it found those actions were driven by operational needs and concerns about his speed and competence, not by race. It found that Mrs Patel gave some training in October 2017 and then stopped being further involved because she genuinely believed he worked too slowly and would not listen to her. It also found that Ms Nenaseva’s explanations about work in the main production area were genuine explanations of the factory’s workload.

The tribunal further found that Mr Jaworski’s raised voice and scolding reflected frustration when production problems arose, and that the claimant was excluded from the briefing on the new machine because the respondent had already concluded that he had not met the required standard to continue as a Machine Minder. Allegations involving Mr Barbu and other incidents were either not proved on the evidence or were not shown to have any racial basis.

Applying the section 13 and section 26 Equality Act 2010 framework and the burden of proof authorities it cited, including Nagarajan, Madarassy, Igen, Shamoon, Richmond Pharmacology and Land Registry, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established facts from which unlawful race discrimination or race harassment could be inferred. The complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.