Mr E A Alexandru v First Greater Western Ltd: 2200509/2019 and Others
| Judgment Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Citation | 2200509/2019 and Others |
| Published date | 18 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Nos: 2200509/2019, 2203079/2019 & 2201562/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr E Androne-Alexandru
Respondent: First Greater Western Limited
Heard at: London Central
On: 4, 5, 6, 9 – 13 November 2020
In chambers: 16 and 17 November 2020
Before: Employment Judge Khan
Mr G Bishop
Mr S Hearn
Representation
Claimant: Mr J Singh, Senior Paralegal
Respondent: Mr R Fitzpatrick, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
(1) The victimisation complaint at issue 8 (g) succeeds in part.
(2) All other complaints fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
1. In three claims, presented on 13 February 2019, 20 August 2019 and 14
March 2020, the claimant brought complaints of direct race discrimination,
race-related harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010
(EQA) and detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure under
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). The respondent resists these
complaints.
2. On day six of the hearing the claimant withdrew one of the allegations of
victimisation.
Case Nos: 2200509/2019, 2203079/2019 & 2201562/2020
2
The issues
3. The issues we were required to determine were set out in the appendix to
tribunal’s Order dated 6 October 2020 and amended during the hearing
following discussion with the parties. These issues, which have been
rearranged under each of the complaints brought for ease of reference, are
as follows:
A. Direct race discrimination (section 13 EQA)
(The first claim)
1. Was the claimant subjected to the following treatment?
a. The claimant’s supervisors (specifically Tony Murphy and Martin
Graver) regularly and inordinately monitoring (through CCTV and
mobile phone visual images) the claimant whilst he went on toilet
breaks or short rest breaks during his work shift and reporting
these as unauthorised absences from gateline duties to station
managers on:
(i) 7 March 2018;
(ii) 12 April 2018;
(iii) 19 April 2018.
b. The claimant being pressed by supervisors and management
officials to complete an ‘Irregular Occurrence Investigation Form’
about these alleged unauthorised absences on:
(i) around 7 March 2018 (Mr Murphy);
(ii) 12 April 2018 (Mr Murphy);
(iii) 19 April 2018 (Fred Ellis).
c. Various station managers at Paddington Station questioning and
probing the claimant about these alleged unauthorised
absences, following reports from supervisors (Mr Murphy and Mr
Graver), on:
(i) 18 August 2017 (Mr Law and Mr MacGinnis);
(ii) 18 February 2018 (Rodney Seelal);
(iii) 7 March 2018 (Tom Law);
(iv) 8 March 2018 (Mr Law);
(v) 12 April 2018 (Mr Law);
(vi) 16 April 2018 (Mr Seelal);
(vii) 19 April 2018 (Mr Ellis).
d. On 16 April 2018, Mr Seelal issuing the claimant with a formal
notice of an investigation meeting (to be held on 24 April 2018)
about his alleged unauthorised absence from the gateline on 12
April 2018.
2. Does this amount to less favourable treatment? The claimant relies
on the following comparators: Fred Ellis; Alan Lee-Bing; Danny
Bran; Joel Brannigan; Brian MacDonald; John Levit; Adrian; Remi
Awoshile. Each comparator is white and British save for Mr Awoshile
who is African and British.
Case Nos: 2200509/2019, 2203079/2019 & 2201562/2020
3
3. If so, was this because of the claimant’s Romanian-Jewish ethnicity
and race?
B. Harassment (section 13 EQA)
(The first claim)
4. Alternatively, did the conduct alleged at paragraph 1 (a) to (d)
amount to unwanted conduct?
5. If so, did it relate to the claimant’s race as a Romanian-Jewish
person?
6. Did the conduct have the purpose or (taking into account the
claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case and
whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect) the effect
of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment?
C. Victimisation (section 27 EQA)
(The first, second and third claims)
7. It is accepted that the claimant did the following protected acts:
a. He submitted a formal complaint to his employer on 19
September 2018, in which he raised allegations of race
discrimination and race related harassment (PA1).
b. He submitted an ET1 on 13th February 2019 raising claims of
race discrimination and harassment (PA2).
c. He submitted a second ET1 on 20 August 2019 raising claims of
victimisation under the EQA (PA3).
8. Did the respondent subject the claimant to the following detriments?
(The first claim)
a. The claimant not being allowed to return to work on 16 October
2018 due to a decision by Adam Field on 15 October 2018 that
the claimant must stay off work until his formal complaint
submitted on 19 September 2018 had been dealt with; causing:
further prolonged absence from his work at Paddington Station;
general distress; financial loss due to the claimant exceeding the
six-month absence limit which caused his pay to be reduced to
half-pay; loss of usual opportunities to earn additional income
from overtime and Sunday working.
b. An unreasonable delay in commencing a formal investigation into
the claimant’s formal complaint with the first investigation hearing
being held on 5 November 2019 but being cancelled midway and
no further initial complaint hearing being held until 30 January
To continue reading
Request your trial