Mr M Bennett v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 1800880/2015
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 2017 |
| Citation | 1800880/2015 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 05 October 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
Case Number: 1800880/2015
10.5 Reserved judgment with reas ons – rule 61 March 2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Bennett
Respondent: Royal Mail Group Limited
Heard at: Sheffield On: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 June 2017
10, 11 August and 29 September 2017 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Brain
Members: Mr P Kent
Mr K Lannaman
Representation
Claimant: Mr S Flynn of Counsel
Respondent: Mr S Peacock, Solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
1. The Claimant’s equal pay complaint brought under the Equality Act 2010 (upon
the basis of section 65(1) (a)) fails upon the basis that he was not engaged in
like work with his chosen comparator.
2. The complaints brought under the 2010 Act of direct discrimination because of
the protected characteristic of race identified in issues A, C, D and G in the
agreed list of issues (summarised in paragraph 292 of the reasons below),
victimisation in issues A, C, D and G and harassment in issue G were
presented within the limitation period prescribed by section 123 of the 2010 Act.
3. The complaints brought under the 2010 Act of direct discrimination because of
the protected characteristic of race, victimisation and harassment in issues B, E
and F were brought outside the limitation period prescribed by section 123 of
the 2010 Act. It is just and equitable to extend time and the Tribunal has
jurisdiction to consider them.
4. The Claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination under the 2010 Act because
of the protected characteristic of race succeed upon issues A, B, C and
succeed in part upon issue D (in relation to the grievance raised by him on 21
November 2013 supplemented on 6 December 2013) only. The remainder of
issue D and those complaints in issues E, F, G and H fail.
Case Number: 1800880/2015
10.5 Reserved judgment with reas ons – rule 61 March 2017
2
5. All of the Claimant’s complaints of victimisation fail.
6. The Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to race succeeds identified in
issue B. Those in issues E, F and G fail.
7. The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent on 13 November 2014 by
reason of redundancy. Pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Rights Act
1996 he is entitled to a redundancy payment
8. The Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant.
9. The Claimant’s complaint that he suffered an unlawful deduction from his
wages fails. The complaint was brought within the limitation period prescribed
by section 23 of the 1996 Act.
10. The Claimant’s complaint that the Respondent is liable to compensate him for
holiday accrued but untaken as at 13 November 2014 succeeds.
REASONS
1. Following a reading day which took place on 12 June 2017, the Tribunal heard
evidence over eight days between 13 and 22 June 2017 inclusive. Helpful
submissions were then made by each representative on 26 June 2017. The
Tribunal reserved judgment. We now set out the reasons for the judgment that
we have reached.
2. The Claimant presented his claim form to the Employment Tribunal on
27 March 2015. Later in these reasons we shall set out the issues in full.
Suffice it to say at this stage that the Claimant brought the following
complaints:-
2.1. Unfair dismissal
2.2. Direct race discrimination
2.3. Victimisation
2.4. Harassment (related to the protected characteristic of race)
2.5. Equal pay
2.6. Unlawful deduction from wages
3. The claim form also included the following claims which have been withdrawn:-
3.1. Breach of contract
3.2. Direct sex discrimination
3.3. Disability discrimination
4. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant. Following his cross-
examination we received evidence from the Respondent. The following
witnesses gave evidence on the Respondent’s behalf:-
4.1. Gary Milne. He worked for the Respondent between June 1989 and
June 2015. He held various roles during his employment with the
Respondent. At the time that he left he was employed as a delivery
director.
Case Number: 1800880/2015
10.5 Reserved judgment with reas ons – rule 61 March 2017
3
4.2. Ian Haxton. He is employed by the Respondent as head of HR delivery
for East of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
4.3. Bradley Sayers. He is employed by the Respondent and currently holds
the post of head of HR – processing, collections and logistics (East).
4.4. Veronica Stevens. She is an employee of the Respondent. She
currently holds the post of service manager for appeals which is part of
the HR services function.
4.5. Joan Mee. She is an employee of the Respondent and currently holds
the post of delivery products deployment lead (West).
4.6. Helen Perry. She is an employee of the Respondent and currently holds
the post of special events planner based at the North West Midlands mail
centre in Wolverhampton.
4.7. Jon Adams. He is no longer an employee of the Respondent. However,
at the material time with which we are concerned he was employed as
the Sheffield mail centre plant manager.
4.8. Gail Nimmo. She is an employee of the Respondent and currently holds
the post of head of delivery product development based at Tyneside mail
centre, Newcastle.
5. The Tribunal was also presented with a witness statement from Erica Wilkinson
who currently holds the post of independent caseworker manager within the
Respondent’s HR services function. In the light of a concession made by
Mr Peacock upon behalf of the Respondent (to which we shall come in due
course) her witness statement was withdrawn. We shall therefore say nothing
further upon it.
6. In addition to the witness statements, the Tribunal was presented with a bundle
of documents. The bundle was made up of four lever arch files. On a
conservative estimate, the documentation ran to in excess of 1500 pages.
(Although the bundles were, of course, paginated this was in places done
alphabetically as well as numerically).
7. We shall firstly set out our findings of fact. We shall then go on to consider in
more detail the allegations raised by the Claimant and the issues to which those
allegations give rise. We shall then consider the relevant law before going on to
set out the conclusions that we have reached.
8. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 8 February
1988. Between 1988 and 1999 he worked as a postman. The Claimant held
aspirations to progress his career within the Respondent. To that end he
undertook what was described in the letter dated 29 October 1997 at page
106A as “the introduction to OPS management scheme”. There was no
explanation given to the Tribunal as to what this entailed. It appears from that
letter at page 106A of the bundle that successfully undergoing this assessment
would lead to a placement upon such a scheme. The Claimant successfully
completed an introductory course in supervisory management studies on 2
June 1998 (page 106B). Although the Tribunal was not taken to it during the
course of the proceedings, we see from pages 106C and 106D that the
Claimant participated in a trainee manager scheme. Presumably with the
benefit of this training under his belt the Claimant moved from being a postman
To continue reading
Request your trial