Claimant v Carfraemill Ltd — 2023

Ms T Nogueria, a Portuguese national, worked for Carfraemill Ltd as assistant manager from 28 June 2021 on a salary of £25,000. At a preliminary hearing the sex discrimination and constructive dismissal claims were withdrawn; the tribunal later recorded the sex discrimination claim as dismissed following withdrawal. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she did not have sufficient qualifying service.

The race-based complaints were that she had been picked on, not paid SSP, humiliated by a staff message, harassed by David, paid less than Rebecca Craig, left unsupported, blamed over the fire alarm, and refused notice and holiday arrangements. Applying the burden of proof in Barton and Igen, the tribunal found that she had not proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It preferred the respondents' evidence and the contemporaneous Deputy and payroll records, and held that the disputes were about staffing pressures, role expectations, and customer-facing performance rather than Portuguese nationality.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal held that Jules Reeley's staff message praising David and describing the claimant as assistant manager in training was innocuous, that the SSP issue arose because the payroll system showed she was not entitled to SSP, and that Rebecca Craig's higher rate reflected her experience and the general manager role the respondents thought she could fill. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race and rejected the claimant's reliance on the position of other Portuguese employees.

On harassment, the tribunal held that the comments attributed to David and Jules, including references to the claimant as the Portuguese girl, did not create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, and any complaint about David was time-barred. On wages and holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the first payslip deduction, the later payment of contractual sick pay, and the final payroll calculation. It noted that she had in fact been paid three days of sick pay beyond entitlement, although the respondents did not seek recovery. The tribunal found that the claimant had taken her full annual leave entitlement, had self-approved January leave contrary to procedure, and was not due any further holiday or notice payment. No monetary award was made.