Member Ms Canning Tribunal Member Mr Martin Mr J Kovalkovs v Sisters Food Group Limited — 2021

The claimant, Mr J Kovalkovs, was employed by 2 Sisters Food Group Limited in a food production role and later as a quality inspector. The tribunal accepted that the necklace and crucifix he wore were religious jewellery and a manifestation of his Russian Orthodox Christian faith. It also recorded that the respondent’s foreign body control policy prohibited jewellery in production areas, subject to a risk assessment process for religious jewellery. The claimant’s late attempt to add direct discrimination and harassment allegations was dealt with under Cocking v Sandhurst and Selkent Bus Co v Moore; one direct discrimination allegation was allowed as a relabelling exercise, two further proposed direct discrimination allegations were refused as new and out of time, and the harassment allegations were refused as separate claims that should have been pleaded earlier.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal identified the relevant PCP as the practice of carrying out the religious jewellery risk assessment. It accepted that the practice applied to people who wished to wear jewellery for religious reasons, and that it disadvantaged the claimant because he wished to wear a necklace close to his chest as part of his faith and was ultimately not allowed to do so. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s aim was health and safety for consumers and workers, including contamination and entanglement risks, and concluded that the balance favoured the respondent. It also noted that Article 9 considerations would not have changed the outcome.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal found that Ms McColl told the claimant to remove the necklace on 23 December 2019 because of the respondent’s policy and that she would have asked any employee wearing prohibited jewellery to remove it. It held that the treatment was not because of religion, but for stated health and safety reasons. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also failed because the claimant did not identify the contractual basis for entitlement or the sum claimed. All claims were therefore dismissed.