Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck…

Jan 26, 2021

The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and maliciously accused of misconduct arising from the incidents and that the way in which the company dealt with the matters was unfair to him. The company disputed his account of the incidents and denied that he had suffered discrimination of any kind.

Following a preliminary hearing, an Employment Tribunal (ET) struck out his claims of direct race discrimination and race-related harassment on the basis that they stood no reasonable prospect of success. Whilst acknowledging that he felt genuinely aggrieved, the ET noted that he had put forward no explanation as to how his alleged unfair treatment might be linked to his race.

Upholding his appeal against that outcome, the EAT noted that it is well established that unfair treatment is not necessarily to be equated with discriminatory treatment.

However, it is equally well established that discrimination may be inferred if there is no other explanation for unreasonable behaviour. Taken at its highest, there were features of the man’s case which might be capable of giving rise to such an inference.

The ET should therefore have considered whether the burden of proof shifted so that the company was obliged to show an absence of discrimination. Given the draconian nature of the strike out order, the ET had failed to sufficiently consider whether the man’s claims were plainly and obviously bound to fail. The matter was remitted for reconsideration by a freshly constituted ET.

Health and Safety Fines Are Meant to Hurt – Court of Appeal Ruling

Financial penalties imposed on employers for health and safety breaches are meant to hurt and that is why the scale of their business is highly relevant when it comes to sentencing. In a case on point, a company with an annual turnover of about £1.6 billion was fined £640,000 following a factory floor accident. One of the company’s workers was monitoring the operation of a conveyor belt that kept slipping. That part of the belt was unguarded. He said that a cloth he was holding was dragged into…

Dismissal for Misconduct Without a Reasonable Investigation is Rarely Fair

Dismissing an employee for misconduct is very unlikely to be viewed as fair if there has been no proper investigation and no consideration of either mitigation or the possibility of a lesser sanction. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a veteran music teacher who was sacked for refusing to attend a staff meeting. The teacher, who had worked at the relevant school for 24 years, was told by her boss that attendance at the meeting was not optional. When she informed him…

Employment Tribunal Blasts Operations Manager’s ‘Sham’ Redundancy

Employers all too often assert that a worker’s services are no longer needed when the real reason for their dismissal has nothing whatever to do with redundancy. As one case showed, however, employment judges were not born yesterday and are always on the lookout for such shams. The case concerned the former head of operations of an advertising sales company. He worked long hours, often at weekends and during his holidays. He had a difficult relationship with his line manager, however, largely…