Mr A Guenaman v Brake Bros Ltd: 3200017/2023
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination is dismissed. JUDGMENT having been sent to the parties on 29 October 2024 and reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Rules of Procedure 2013.REASONS
[1]The Claimant brought a claim (claim number 3200017/2023) for direct race discrimination.[2]The claimant engaged ACAS on 22 November 2022. An ACAS certificate was issued on 16th December 2022. The claimant’s claim was lodged with the Tribunal on 6th January 2023.[3]The final hearing took place on 22, 23, 24 and 25 October 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel unanimously dismissed his claim.[4]By e-mail dated 1 November 2024, the claimant has requested written reasons for that decision. FACTS:[5]The claimant was employed as a warehouseman for the respondent from 1 December 2021 until 18 November 2022, when he resigned without notice. He brought a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of race.[6]The claimant worked for the respondent on shifts that started late in the day, originally starting at 6pm and, later, starting at 4pm. Those shifts were all 9 hours long and he remained in the same role throughout, although the tasks he was to complete changed when the start time changed.[7]The claimant’s claim comprises a number of alleged detriments, which are as follows (according to the list of issues from the Preliminary Hearing of 12th June 2023):a. On 14th February 2022, the claimant approached the canteen before it opened. The dinner lady, Olivia, refused to serve him. She served a white colleague 10 minutes later, still 15 minutes before the canteen opened.b. Within the first week of his employment, and at the end of his probationary period, on 11th April 2022 and around 18th August 2022, the claimant expressed an interest in forklift truck training, his name was put forward but he did not hear back.c. The claimant expressed an interest in additional training including fire marshal and first aid training, signed up for it but did not hear back from the respondent. Again, this was towards the end of his probationary period.d. Dean Quinn (Shift Manager) and Monica Iordoaia (Team Manager) refused to allow the claimant to work on reduced duty roles following an injury he suffered on 28th August 2022. Alek (the Warehouse Manager) refused the claimant’s request to work in the cooler module and told him to go home if he was not fit for work.e. The claimant was required to sign a report outlining that he started his duties 16 minutes late, when this was not true.f. The claimant raised his concerns informally to Siobhan Afford (General Manager) on 26th August 2022 and Danny Boyes (Outboudn Team Manager) around 24th and 25th August 2022 but they did not take it seriously.g. The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice as the claimant was not issued with a grievance letter outlining his right to be accompanied to a grievance meeting, after he made a formal grievance arising from the allegation at f. above.[8]The claimant alleges that each of these alleged detriments was because of his race. Incident at the Canteen[9]The claimant made an application to amend his original claim to add the allegation in relation to a refusal to serve the claimant at the canteen on 14th February 2022, as it had not been included in the original claim. This application was made on 9th February 2023. The allegation was not something in any way alluded to in the original ET1 and was therefore an amendment of substance. The amendment was allowed at the Preliminary Hearing, subject to us deciding the jurisdictional time limit point at this hearing. Any detriment occurring before 22nd August 2022 is, on the face of it, out of time.[10]We do not consider this allegation to be part of a continuing series of acts. Olivia, the person who decided not to serve the claimant, was not a manager, did not work for the respondent (she was an agency worker), this was the only incident in which she was alleged to be involved and we can find no evidence to connect this alleged incident with the other alleged incidents.[11]The relevant issue on the list of issues refers to a failure to serve the claimant, not whether or not there was racial discrimination in any subsequent investigation or lack thereof. There is now a suggestion that the server, Olivia, and the investigating manager were both Polish and closed ranks. This was not put in cross-examination, consistent with the true allegation being the failure to serve rather than an inadequate subsequent investigation.[12]We therefore treat that as a standalone claim. The claimant sought to bring the claim just under a year after the alleged conduct. The relevant time limit was three months. We have considered whether it would be just and equitable to extend the time limits for the additional period.[13]The claimant says the claim was late because he only later understood the nature and gravity of the incident. He said he had conducted further research and that led to him applying for the amendment. However, the original claim was submitted on 6th January 2023, by which time the claimant had obviously carefully considered his other claims and researched those. On that basis, this does not provide a reasonable explanation for the lateness of this claim.[14]If we refuse an extension to the time limit for this allegation, it does not preclude the claimant from claiming compensation. There are a number of other heads of claim which can still proceed, subject to time limit issues specifically relating to those claims.[15]The respondent draws our attention to the fact that this individual did not work for them and, given the passage of time, can no longer be identified or brought before the tribunal, despite efforts clearly having been made, albeit very recently. We consider this to cause significant prejudice to the respondent.[16]The respondent also refers to the fact that the statements taken at the time, including one from Olivia, are no longer available. Grzegorz Zalewski was the person who took the statements. He said he passed them up the chain but they are not in the bundle, so he assumes they were destroyed. Although this is unsatisfactory, it may be explained by the passage of time and is also detrimental to the respondent’s preparation.[17]We have considered the merits of this claim. In our view, the claim is weak. The white person the claimant says was served, was served several minutes after the claimant went to the canteen. It is suggested by the respondent that this is because Olivia was not ready to begin serving when the claimant approached but was by the time his white colleague approached. We do not think it likely that the claimant would be able to provide evidence from which the Tribunal could find there was a contravention of the relevant provision. The canteen was not due to open for some time after the claimant approached the canteen. The claim would have been stronger if the white person had approached the canteen, and been served, before the claimant, and then the claimant not served. There is no evidence the claimant was refused service after his white colleague, once Olivia was clearly ready to serve customers, save that, it is common ground that a dispute arose between the claimant and Olivia after the claimant’s white colleague was served because the claimant at the very least took a picture (there is some suggestion of a video) of her, to which she objected.[18]We do not consider it is just and equitable to extend the time limit had this been brought as a fresh claim, it is not part of a series of acts connected to acts within time, and in our judgment the balance of prejudice falls in favour of refusing the an extension to the time limit. Forklift Truck (“FLT”) Training[19]The respondent says the claim about FLT training is out of time, as the claimant said in evidence he should have been provided FLT training in his probation period. However, the list of issues refers to a number of dates on which he asked for training, the latest of which was 18th August 2022. Although, on that basis the claim would still have been four days out of time, the question is when the omission took place and when a person might reasonably be expected to have done it.[20]We find the claimant’s requests for training were an ongoing state of affairs. He repeatedly raised issues about a lack of training and it is clear he was keen to be put on FLT training, in particular.[21]In our judgment, taking into account the deemed date of omission needs to be assessed from the claimant’s point of view, having regard to the facts known or which ought reasonably have been known by the claimant at the relevant time, the claimant only considered the training to have been refused when he met with Siobhan Afford on 25th August 2022 to complain that there was an absence of training. In those circumstances, we find this claim is in time. In any event, for those same reasons, we would have considered it just and equitable to extend the time limit to take into account the first real complaint was made on 25th August 2022 and, given the ongoing state of affairs, and that a lot of the evidence on this topic is recorded in documents, there would be little, if any prejudice to the respondent.[22]In actual fact there was no refusal of training whilst the claimant was medically fit to do it. The claimant says on 11th April 2022 he observed Mihails Molotkovs (Team Manager) driving a forklift, who said they were short of drivers. The claimant expressed an interest in being trained.[23]On 7th July 2022 Mihails Molotkovs provided three names to Kieran Forde (Warehouse Operations Manager) for FLT training. It is clear from the e-mail that this was a follow-up to a previous verbal conversation. The three names put forward included the claimant. Kieran Forde promptly forwarded that e-mail to Justin Kemp (Warehouse Trainer). Justin Kemp was responsible for providing all the FLT training for the respondent and was fully accredited to run such training.[24]Justin Kemp replied the following morning saying that Monica Iodoaia had already booked a course for others and there was therefore no availability. This was around the time that the Wincanton depot lost a large contract with IKEA and a number of qualified FLT drivers became available. These drivers were prioritised because they already had licenses and were quicker to train, as they only needed familiarisation with the location.[25]It makes good business sense, in order to address imminent business need, to prioritise those who already have training and experience, not only because the training would be shorter but because those drivers, with experience, could be expected to demonstrate a higher standard on their start date than those who were fresh out of training. It was raised in evidence that Darren Foster (General Manager (Aylesford, appointed as grievance appeal manager) said the training course was a couple of days shorter than Kieran Forde. However, Darren Foster worked at a smaller depot and would not necessarily know the requirements where the claimant worked. In any event, we do not consider this discrepancy helps us, as it is common ground that teaching a new starter takes longer than providing training for someone with a license and experience. This is extremely dangerous work and therefore it would not be possible to shortcut the course and provide training for new starters in the same length of time as those with experience. It is also of note there were fewer drivers on the nightshift and therefore vacancies were more limited.[26]In his e-mail, Mr Kemp said the earliest he may be able to train the claimant was the end of September 2022.[27]On 18th July 2022, Mr Molotkovs e-mailed Mr Forde and the Harlow Warehouse Nights group and resent the three names, including claimant, for FLT training. That was then forwarded to Mr Kemp, with the addition that if they could provide the guys with a date that would be good.[28]On 19th July 2022, Mr Kemp e-mailed Mr Forde and Mr Molotkovs, saying provisionally the week commencing 3rd or 10th October 2022 but would confirm after checking compliance refreshers, etc. This was a provisional date and, as such, was not communicated to the claimant. However, it is clear evidence that the claimant’s requests for training were being taken seriously, were not being ignored and attempts were being made to progress them.[29]Thereafter, the claimant was put forward for Put Away training (which involved shadowing another colleague on the task), following a conversation on 28th July 2022, such training was to take place on 1st August 2022. However, when the claimant arrived, there was a misunderstanding as to whether this was Put Away training, FLT training or both. The misunderstanding is clear from the e-mails and, as a result, the claimant never did the put away training. However, it is clear that there was no general practice of refusing the claimant any further training.[30]On 4th August 2022 the claimant went to his GP to complain of medical issues arising from working in cold environments, including a constant blocked nose and headaches/dizziness. The management plan was to avoid freezer, which sounded like it is causing a reaction. The medical note said the patient (i.e. the claimant) was to speak to work about this. Over the counter medication was recommended, with a suggested follow-up if symptoms worsened. As a result, the claimant was referred to Occupational Health (“OH”).[31]On 28th August 2022 the claimant was injured lifting at work, which resulted in pain and reduced movement in his right shoulder. He saw the first aider, Igor de Casto. The claimant then consulted his GP.[32]On 12th September 2022 an OH report was produced. This set out the claimant’s symptoms as blurred vision, seeing black spots, dizziness, a blocked nose and difficulty breathing. There is also reference to him having darkening vision and being unable to see.[33]It is company policy that those who operate the forklifts, particularly on the nightshift, where there are fewer of them, must work in each of the temperature chambers, including the freezer. This is in order to address business need. The OH report suggested the claimant should not be subjected to the freezer environment.[34]It is therefore clear, that from the end of August 2022, the claimant was medically unfit (through dizziness, affected vision and the inability to work in the freezer) to operate a forklift, although we accept the evidence from Mr Forde, that this was not an exclusion from training but a pause until the claimant recovered. Mr Forde made clear that once the claimant recovered, the claimant would have been eligible for training again.[35]We therefore find training was not withheld from the claimant, although there came a time when he was medically unfit to be trained. There is certainly no evidence that any absence or delay of training was on the basis of race. In fact, efforts were made to place him on a course. We note Justin Kemp was the only trainer, was busy, had to prioritise refresher training and therefore there was often a wait to be placed on a course. Fire Marshal and First Aid Training[36]The respondent alleges that the claim in respect of Fire Marshal and First Aid training is out of time. The list of issues says that this training was requested but the claimant did not hear back towards the end of his probation period. Therefore, this claim appears to be limited to the probation period, which ended on 9th March 2022. On that basis, this aspect of the claim was out of time.[37]We therefore have to consider whether this was part of a continuing series of events connected to a legitimate claim or whether it would be just and equitable to extend the time for submitting the claim.[38]During the course of the hearing forklift training, and Fire Marshal and First Aid training were all referred to as Enhanced Training. In our judgment, therefore, any denial of First Aid training and Fire Marshal training can be properly characterised as part of a series of acts including the alleged failure to provide forklift training. The claim is therefore in time.[39]The respondent’s evidence was that they were not aware of the claimant asking for First Aid or Fire Marshall Training. There were limited places available, not least because an extra payment was made for those in that role.[40]The claimant says he discussed training with Mihail Molotkovs, some of the courses discussed were First Aid and Fire Marshal, although Mihail Molotkovs says he does not recall being asked about such training. Likewise, Mr Forde says the claimant never asked him about such training.[41]Another of the respondent’s witnesses, Danny Boyes, said that enhanced training would not usually be offered to probationers, although he agrees with the claimant to the extent that managers in April 2022 were given a tick list of training courses for staff on their teams to express an interest. He cannot recall whether the claimant’s name was on a list. However, this is outside the time period on the list of issues.[42]In April 2022 the QR code system was introduced and it seems there were some teething issues with that. The process was to sign up through a QR code but there is no record of him having applied for it in that way. The claimant did apply for a job on the QR system but, effectively, ended up applying for his own job. The respondent says the absence of training being listed on the QR code means the training was not available. This, again, is outside the time period in the list of issues.[43]We find the claimant was clearly an ambitious individual and we find, on the balance of probabilities, that he did ask for this training during his probation period. It is a common theme of the claimant’s employment that he regularly and enthusiastically expressed an interest in further training and progression.[44]It is clear the claimant was not put on that training. However, we have a list of three comparators, who were put on the training and where white (both Polish and British). Of those, two started before the claimant, only one, one of the British delegates, started after him. We also note that, of those comparators, none were trained during the claimant’s probation period. Therefore, none of them were true comparators.[45]There was limited availability of courses, which is apparent from the fact only three people were trained during the claimant’s period of employment. One of the respondent’s witnesses, Mr Rowe, sayid there was no Fire Marshal training at all. Indeed, the list of comparators with which we were provided only did First Aid Training. No-one was trained as a Fire Marshal.[46]We therefore find that, whilst the claimant expressed an interest in such training, and was not trained, there is no evidence that this was because of his race. The Claimant’s Injury and Reduced Duty Roles:[47]The claimant says that following his injury at work, insufficient reasonable adjustments were made for him and this was because of his race. On the list of issues, the allegation is that they refused the claimant’s request to work in reduced duty roles and in the cooler module.[48]The claimant was injured on 28th August 2022. He saw the first aider and then his GP. He returned to work on 29th August 2022.[49]When he returned on 29 August 2022 he was allowed to spend one night on the hygiene department and wanted that arrangement to continue but it was refused on the basis, according to the respondent, that there was no business need for him to work there.[50]The claimant was then offered work in the cooler module, which he says was only permitted for 4 days. In the cooler module, he says he met another injured employee, Daniel Moffat, who was white, and Daniel Moffat was permitted to work in the cooler module for much longer, in fact until the claimant left the employment of the respondent. The claimant says this was discriminatory on the basis of race.[51]The respondent says Daniel Moffat had a GP note, which resulted in him being in the cooler module, doing picking, for about 3 months from the summer of 2022. The respondent says they were in possession of medical evidence from Daniel Moffat’s doctor that he should only perform light duties, that he was still able to carry out picking work and agreed to carry out lighter picking work in the cooler module.[52]The claimant said he also had a GP note dated 28th August 2022 but that note does not make any reference to his ability or inability to work in certain places. The advice from that note is that he “likely had a strain of the shoulder from heavy lifting”. He was given medication and told he should: “Rest and gentle mobilisation. For review in walk-in clinic if worsening pain or review with GP if continuing pain next week.” This medical note therefore expects the symptoms to clear up within a few days and does not give any indication of the need for ongoing reasonable adjustments.[53]We find no evidence to suggest that any decision in relation to reasonable adjustments, by allowing him or not allowing him to work in particular areas of the business, was based on his race. The respondent’s witnesses gave explained that the hygiene department was properly staffed, the dry area was properly staffed, not least because that was the first area in which new members of staff were trained and the respondent had no vacancies for him doing the lighter duties he had requested.[54]We also found some inconsistency in the claimant’s claim. At times he was alleging a detriment because he was not allowed to work in the cooler module, whilst at other times he was seeking to establish the medical evidence said he was unfit to work in the cooler module.[55]In our judgment it was to do with his capacity to work in each chamber. Alleged Lateness:[56]The respondent says the detriment in relation to alleged lateness is out of time, as this appears to relate to an incident on 3rd May 2022. It was not clear exactly which incident of lateness the claimant was referring to but this interpretation seems likely to be correct and, in any event, is the last allegation of lateness. Therefore, that interpretation gives the claimant any benefit of the doubt.[57]The claimant says the claim is not out of time because he challenged Grzegorz Zalewski about it on 8th November 2022. Looking at the list of issues, however, this complaint relates to being required to sign a false report that he was 16 minutes late, not that there is any complaint about any subsequent investigation or behaviour. Therefore, in our judgment the alleged detriment must have occurred no later than 3rd May 2022 and the claim is out of time.[58]We do not find this was part of a series of acts. It is alleged conduct of an entirely different nature from the other detriments of which the claimant complains and there is no evidence of an underlying culture of racism at the respondent company. We therefore treat this as a standalone claim.[59]Turning to whether it is just and equitable to allow the claim out of time. The claim would be over 3 months out of time. The claimant did not give a specific reason for this being out time, claiming that it was in time. No good reason has therefore been provided for the delay. The allegation was not included in the grievance the claimant made to the respondent in September 2022. The claimant has a number of other heads of claim, which he has pursued, which are in time, so refusal to extend time would not necessarily prevent him being awarded compensation if the other claims were to succeed. The passage of time will have impacted on the recollection of witnesses, particularly in relation to the others involved, who the claimant cites as comparators, whom, by the very nature of the allegation, are said not have their lateness documented properly. Further, having heard the evidence during the hearing, we are not persuaded, given the records that are available, such as the claimant’s praise and issues log and that of the one named comparator, Paulius Cepurna, are such that this allegation is so strong as to require us to allow it to be pursued out of time. In our judgment, therefore, the balance of prejudice weighs against allowing the time to be extended for this claim. Raising of Informal Concerns:[60]So far as the complaints in relation to the informal raising of complaints is concerned, it was apparent during the evidence that the conversation with Danny Boyes happened at a different time and this was not really pursued, being outwith the timeframe in the list of issues.[61]There was a conversation with Siobhan Afford on 25th August 2022 about the lack of training opportunities, which she agreed to take forward. The claimant says he alleged race discrimination in that meeting. Ms Afford strongly disagrees. However, Ms Afford said that she would take the claimant’s concerns forward.[62]Ms Afford was due to go on holiday the next day. She says she told the claimant she would look into his complaints on her return. The claimant said he expected her to have done at least something to further this before she went away. In our judgment, this is an unreasonable expectation. She was a busy manager in a busy position. She, no doubt, had many things to sort before taking a period of leave.[63]Ms Afford returned from leave on 5 or 6 September 2022. On 8 September 2022 the claimant submitted a formal grievance to her. Ms Afford said, quite reasonably, in our judgment, that she then allowed the formal process to take its course, so did not pursue the informal complaint.[64]However, the claimant said she had 2 or 3 days between returning from leave until he handed in the formal grievance, in which she could have done something about it. Again, in our view, this is entirely unreasonable. Ms Afford said she had a number of things to resolve on her return from leave. We accept that evidence. It stands to reason. And we have no reason to question how she prioritised her work on her return. In our view, a period in the region of 2 weeks after returning from leave would have been reasonable for Ms Afford to look into the complaints and get back to the claimant.[65]Again, there is no evidence to suggest she failed to deal with the informal complaint because of the claimant’s race or that she did not take the complaints seriously because of his race. ACAS Code of Practice:[66]In relation to the alleged failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice to offer the claimant to bring a colleague to the grievance meeting, we find this was a simple mistake. The respondent has already conceded they got this wrong and were very candid about it in the appeal paperwork and at the final hearing.[67]Matt Tindall (Transport Operations Manager), who handled the original grievance said that he sent an e-mail, rather than the proforma letter, out of expediency and that is why this was missed. He said he understood the claimant’s request to bring others to the meeting was a request to bring other witnesses, not a colleague, which would have been inappropriate, as they would need to have provided statements. This is how the e-mail reads and we accept his evidence. Mr Tindall’s e-mail inviting the claimant to the grievance meeting may have been careless, in not relying on the pro-forma letter, which set out the claimant’s rights but we do not find any evidence to suggest it was because of the claimant’s race. We accept this error occurred because he was trying to progress the claimant’s grievance expeditiously and he acted in good faith. LAW:[68]Section 13 of the Equalities Act 2010 reads as follows: 13 Direct discrimination(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.(2) If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.(3) If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.(4) If the protected characteristic is marriage and civil partnership, this section applies to a contravention of Part 5 (work) only if the treatment is because it is B who is married or a civil partner.(5) If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others.(6) If the protected characteristic is sex— (a) less favourable treatment of a woman includes less favourable treatment of her because she is breast-feeding; (b) in a case where B is a man, no account is to be taken of special treatment afforded to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.(7) Subsection (6)(a) does not apply for the purposes of Part 5 (work).(8) This section is subject to sections 17(6) and 18(7).[69]Section 136 of the Equalities Act 2010 provides: 136 Burden of proof(1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act.(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.(4) The reference to a contravention of this Act includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule.(5) This section does not apply to proceedings for an offence under this Act.(6) A reference to the court includes a reference to— (a) an employment tribunal; (b) the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal; (c) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission; (d) the First-tier Tribunal; (e) the Education Tribunal for Wales; (f) the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Health and Education Chamber[70]Section 123 of the Equalities Act 2010 reads as follows: 123 Time limits(1) Subject to section 140B proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of— (a)the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b)such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable.(2) Proceedings may not be brought in reliance on section 121(1) after the end of- (a) the period of 6 months starting with the date of the act to which the proceedings relate, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable.(3) For the purposes of this section— (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.(4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person (P) is to be taken to decide on failure to do something— (a) when P does an act inconsistent with doing it, or (b) if P does no inconsistent act, on the expiry of the period in which P might reasonably have been expected to do it. CONCLUSIONS:[71]In our judgment, the alleged detriment for Olivia’s failure to serve the claimant at the canteen is out of time, it does not form part of a series of acts and it is not just and equitable to extent the 3-month time limit.[72]The claimant was not refused FLT training. Quite the contrary, the respondent sought to put him on a course. The claimant did later become unfit to be a forklift driver but was accept, should he recover, he would have been put on a course. There is nothing from which a Tribunal could infer training was withheld on the grounds of race.[73]The claimant was not refused other training. Efforts were made for him to be placed on “Put Away” training but, because of miscommunication and confusion, he did not end up doing that course. There is nothing to suggest the reason he was not put on Fire Marshall or First Aid training was anything other than the availability of courses and the needs of the business. There is no evidence from which a Tribunal could infer this training was withheld on the grounds of race.[74]The allegations that the claimant was not allowed to work on reduced duties because of his race are unfounded. The claimant was not allowed to continue to work on reduced duties because there was no availability for him to work where he asked to work. The decision was made to address business need. There is no evidence from which it could be inferred the decisions were made because of race. Whilst another, white, employee was allowed to work on reduced duties, this was a reasonable adjustment put in place because of his long-term injury. The medical evidence suggested the claimant’s injury was more transient. There was no evidence from which a Tribunal could infer this decision was made because of the claimant’s race.[75]The alleged detriment in relation to the claimant’s time keeping was out of time, it did not form part of a series of acts and it was not just and equitable to extend the three-month time limit for making a complaint about that alleged detriment.[76]The alleged detriment that the claimant’s informal complaint was not taken seriously by Siobhan Afford is unfounded. There is no evidence to suggest she did not take the claim seriously. The claimant placed unreasonable expectations on Siobhan Afford, was impatient and escalated the matter to a formal grievance without allowing Siobhan Afford sufficient time to investigate his concerns. This cannot be reasonably viewed as a detriment and, in any event, there is no evidence to suggest any delay was because of the claimant’s race.[77]We accept the respondent did fail to follow the ACAS Codes of Practice, as did the respondent. However, the evidence suggests this was a genuine error made in good faith as the respondent sought to expedite the claimant’s grievance. There is no evidence from which a Tribunal could infer this failure was because of the claimant’s race.[1]This case was heard on 22, 23, 24 and 25 October 2024. Written reasons were subsequently requested. These were provided on 21 November 2024.[2]On 3 December 2024, the Tribunal received a request for reconsideration from the Claimant. The Law:[3]Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules (“the Rules”) states: A Tribunal may, either on its own initiative... or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so...[4]Rule 71 of the Rules states: ...an application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing... within 14 days of the date on which the written record, or other written communication of the original decision was sent to the parties or within 14 days of the date that the written reasons Case Number: 3200017/2023 were sent (if later) and shall set out why reconsideration of the original decision is necessary.[5]Rule 72(1) of the Rules states: An Employment Judge shall consider any application made under rule 71. If the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application shall be refused and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal... Conclusions:[6]The application for reconsideration was made in time. However, the document submitted by the Claimant amounts to no more than a repetition of the evidence heard during the course of the hearing and seeks to revisit the arguments made.[7]Whilst the Claimant disagrees with the inferences the Tribunal drew from the evidence heard at the final hearing, the conclusions the Tribunal drew applying the relevant law, and, thus, the findings of fact, and disagrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant law, the application does not point to clear, specific errors of fact or law.[8]In all the circumstances, I refuse the application for reconsideration. In my judgment, this is an attempt to reargue the case put forward at the final hearing and there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. Further, allowing reconsideration would be against the principle of finality in litigation. Therefore, reconsideration is not necessary in the interests of justice. The parties should be informed accordingly.