Claimant v Allied Vehicles Limited — 2018

Mr Gorski, a welder fabricator employed by Allied Vehicles Ltd, brought race discrimination complaints arising from a series of workplace incidents. The tribunal refused his late application to add four September 2017 allegations because they were new claims, nearly four months out of time, and would have brought other claims in time to the respondent's prejudice.

Applying s.13 EqA 2010 and the comparator analysis discussed in the authorities it cited, the tribunal found that the timecard allegation was not made out because Graham Peoples would not have instructed a manual entry for an eight-hour or three-day period. It also found that requests to speed up work were made to all fabricators in a tight production environment, that the training, overalls and welding certificate issues did not involve less favourable treatment, and that the request for the claimant to attend work after his thumb injury was based on absence-policy concerns and the claimant's previous history, not race.

The tribunal made similar findings on the thermos flask, angle grinder, Tig torch, Kallan Tocher and Lorraine Reilly issues. It accepted that the hot-drink restriction applied to all employees, that the equipment incidents had non-racial explanations, and that Lorraine Reilly spoke to employees who were idle during working time. On the evidence it accepted, these matters were not treated as less favourable treatment because of race.

The heating allegation was also rejected. The tribunal found that the heating in the fabrication area was localised and was switched on and off according to individual fabricators' temperature preferences. It held that the claimant's own description of the matter at mediation as 'banter' and the absence of any contemporaneous complaint that it was racially directed meant the conduct did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment under s.26 EqA 2010, and did not relate to race. The alleged racist remarks were not proved because the claimant gave no oral evidence about them and there was no other witness evidence to support them.

The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it would be just and equitable to extend time for the remaining allegations under s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010, so those complaints were out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination and harassment were therefore dismissed, and no award was made.