Case 3400244/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person. For the First v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3400244/2017
Decision date: 24 August 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Members
Venue: Norwich
Panel members: Mr R Allan, Ms R Kilner

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person. For the First

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard the claimant's allegations that he was subjected to harassment by colleagues on racial and religious grounds after an altercation on 5 October 2016. It found that the words 'babaji' and 'pideras' were exchanged in the course of an argument about work, and relied on the translations obtained by the first respondent to conclude that the words were offensive but had no racial or religious connotation. It also found the claimant's account of having been called a 'fucking Muslim' was not credible because he did not raise that allegation at the first opportunities and only advanced it later in the process.

The tribunal also rejected the allegation that Mr Tony Smith used the phrase 'fucking Muslim' at the 3 November 2016 grievance meeting. It accepted the evidence of Mrs Mears and Mrs Drewery that Mr Smith was giving a general example involving Muslim and Christian identity, and noted the absence of any supporting complaint from the claimant's trade union representative. On that evidence, the harassment claims were not well founded.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted the second respondent's evidence that the need for agency shunter drivers reduced after the peak season and after commercial decisions affecting the site. It found that Mr Welch, who instructed the reduction in agency drivers, was not involved in and did not know about the grievance dispute, so the withdrawal of the claimant's assignment was a business decision and not a detriment because he had done a protected act. The claim against the first respondent also failed because it was acting on the second respondent's commercial instruction and had no control over that decision.

At the end of the case the respondents sought costs. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's conduct in settlement negotiations was unreasonable, particularly the increase from offers around £4,000 to a demand for £42,000 after earlier negotiations had been moving towards resolution. Applying rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and having regard to the claimant's means, it ordered him to pay a contribution of £10,000 to each respondent, making £20,000 in total.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The tribunal rejected the allegation arising from the 5 October 2016 altercation that the words used had racial connotations. It found there was no credible evidence that 'babaji' was used in a racially discriminatory way and considered the claimant's later account inconsistent.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was called a 'fucking Muslim' by Mr Seibutis or, later, by Mr Kunigilis or Mr Smith. It found no credible evidence that the phrase was used and accepted the respondents' evidence that the meeting remarks were examples, not abuse.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Victimisation	The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant's grievance led to withdrawal of his assignment or a refusal to continue offering work. It accepted that the second respondent's need for shunter drivers fell after the seasonal peak and that the decision was a business decision unrelated to the protected act.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £20,000; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.