Mr D Lewandowski v Fishers Services Limited — 2026

Mr Lewandowski pursued the allegations in Complaints 4 and 9 to 14 as direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, relying on his Polish nationality and, for direct discrimination, a hypothetical comparator. The Tribunal dismissed those complaints as not well founded. Complaints 1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8, pursued on the same bases, and the victimisation complaint numbered 15 were struck out because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine them. Mr Lewandowski confirmed that he was not pursuing Complaint 7.

For Complaint 4, the Tribunal found that Lyndsey Keene had not blamed Mr Lewandowski for low packing output and that employees worked towards a group target rather than being challenged against individual targets. In Complaint 9, it found that Mr Lewandowski was allowed to leave for his veterinary appointment, Amanda Bradley had not promised that the time would be paid holiday, and Miss Keene therefore did not overrule a decision by Mrs Bradley. In Complaint 10, it found that Cheryl McGrevy, rather than Miss Keene, decided to move Mr Lewandowski from packing cages to bags, with work allocation based on business need and team rotation during the peak holiday period. The Tribunal found that the relevant decisions were not because of or related to Mr Lewandowski's Polish nationality and that he was treated in the same way as workers of other nationalities.

For Complaints 11 to 14, the Tribunal found that Miss McGrevy asked Mr Lewandowski and other team members to hurry when they had been talking too long or were not packing enough; Katarzyna Bladziak had not told him to hurry; and neither had acted on an instruction from Miss Keene. Miss McGrevy scanned tickets under her own number to speed up the work, individual scanning totals did not adversely affect employees because the target was collective, and other workers had been treated similarly. Instructions to stop talking were given to different team members when work required it, and neither Miss McGrevy nor Miss Bladziak prevented colleagues from helping Mr Lewandowski. The Tribunal drew no adverse inference concerning the deletion of CCTV footage and found no credible evidence of a pattern of discrimination against Polish workers.

The earlier complaints concerned alleged events between October 2021 and 10 May 2024. ACAS early conciliation began on 25 September 2024 and the claim was presented on 18 November 2024; the primary limitation period for the latest earlier complaint had expired on 9 August 2024. Because none of Complaints 4 or 9 to 14 amounted to an Equality Act contravention, they could not establish a continuing course of unlawful conduct bringing the earlier complaints within time. The Tribunal found that Mr Lewandowski knew about the right to bring tribunal proceedings, was capable of commencing proceedings within time, and had initially decided that it was in his interests not to do so. It also considered the length of the delay, the deterioration of witness recollections, prejudice arising from the reduced cogency of the evidence, and the public interest in enforcing time limits. It concluded that extending time was not just and equitable.