Mr K Bijou v DHL Parcel UK Ltd: 3314725/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Citation | 3314725/2020 |
| Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 07 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
CASE NO: 3314725/2020 RESERVED
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Kevin Bijou
Respondents: DHL Parcel UK Ltd
Record of an attended Full Hearing heard at
the Employment Tribunal
Heard at: Nottingham
On: 4-5 July 2022 (Reading days) 6,7,11,12,13,14,18,19,20,21,25,26,27,28
July, 2,3 August 2022 (Hearing days) 4, 5 August 2022 (Reserved Judgment)
Before: Employment Judge Hutchinson
Members: Mr J Akhtar Mr C Tansley
Representation
Claimant: Francis Mortin, Counsel Respondent: James Boyd,
Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claims of Race Discrimination and they are
dismissed.
CASE NO: 3314725/2020 RESERVED
2
RESERVED REASONS
Background to this Hearing
1. The Claimant presented his claim to the Tribunal on 10 December 2020 having
entered into Early Conciliation with ACAS. He notified ACAS of his claim on 11
September 2020 and they issued their certificate on 28 September 2020.
2. He claimed that he had been working for the Respondents at their East Midlands
Area Distribution Centre from November 2014 until 7 September 2020 as a
subcontractor.
3. His claim was of race discrimination only.
4. In his claim form he said that he had worked for the Respondent under a
subcontractor agreement dated 6 November 2014 and that the Respondent had
terminated his services on 7 September 2020.
5. He relied on the protected characteristic of race and described his ethnicity as
Jamaican Indian.
6. He said that he had been subjected to abuse, acts and omissions of unfair
treatment, harassment and victimisation.
7. He said that he had suffered the above throughout, what he described as, his
employment, but the earliest specific complaint is on 16 October 2017 involving a
colleague Shirley Brooksbank. His complaint was of continuous discrimination
right up to the termination of his contract on 7 September 2020. He said that his
contract had been terminated by the Respondent because, as his Counsel
described, “he had become too big a problem for management to deal with as he
did not shy away from complaining of discrimination and as a result of his race he
was treated differently at the depot, as were his drivers”.
8. In their response the Respondents said that the Claimant had originally been
engaged under a sub-contractor agreement dated 10 November 2014, but that
agreement terminated in January 2017.
9. On 17 January 2017 the Respondents entered into a contract for the supply of
courier services with Knight Rider Express Courier Services Limited (“Knight
Rider”).
10. They said that the Claimant was the sole statutory Director of Knight Rider and
they denied he was an employee of the Respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial