Mr D Rzezniczak v Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust: 6000651/2023
JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is:[1]The Claimant’s claim of direct discrimination succeeds in respect of the removal of homeworking.[2]The Claimant’s claim of direct discrimination fails and is dismissed in respect of the removal of overtime.[3]The Claimant’s claim for discrimination arising from disability fails and is dismissed.[4]It is just and equitable to award an uplift of 20% on compensation awarded, due to the Respondent’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures (“ACAS uplift”).[5]The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the total sum of £7,225.64, comprised as follows:a. Injury to feelings - £5,000b. ACAS uplift of 20% - £1,000c. Interest (932 days x 0.08 x 1/365 x £6,000) - £1,225.64 Case No: 6000651/2023REASONS
[1]Applications for reconsideration are governed by Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[2]Rule 68 provides that 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”. This allows an Employment Tribunal a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. The discretion must be exercised judicially. This means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the reconsideration but also the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation.[3]The Tribunal dealing with the question of reconsideration must seek to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly.[4]The procedure upon a reconsideration application is for the Employment Judge that heard the case or gave the judgment in question to consider the application and determine if there are reasonable prospects of the original decision or judgment being varied or revoked. Essentially, this is a reviewing function in which the Employment Judge must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of reconsideration in the interest of justice. There must be some basis for reconsideration. It is insufficient for an applicant to apply simply because they disagree with the decision.[5]If the Employment Judge considers that there is no such reasonable prospect then the application shall be refused. Otherwise, the original decision shall be Case No: 6000651/2023 reconsidered at a subsequent reconsideration hearing. The Employment Judge’s role therefore upon considering such an application is to act as a filter to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked were the matter to be considered at a reconsideration hearing.[6]This case was heard from 19-23 May 2025 at the Bristol Employment Tribunal by video hearing.[7]The case was heard by a full tribunal panel, which made unanimous findings of fact and conclusions. Full reasons were given orally at the conclusion of the hearing.[8]The Claimant has since made applications for reconsideration in respect of the calculation of compensation awarded and the rate of interest. The Claimant’s application - interest[9]By email of 22 May 2025, the Claimant has asked whether interest has been calculated correctly. This is treated as an application for reconsideration. The Claimant asserts that there should have been compounded interest.[10]There is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being reconsidered on this basis. Regulation 3 of the Discrimination Interest Regulations 1996 provides for interest to accrue from day to day, and that it is simple rather than compound. The Claimant’s application - quantum[11]The Claimant also emailed the Tribunal about loss of earnings, stating that from 19 January 2024 he would have been entitled to a pay increment and that this therefore affected the amount awarded as compensation.[12]However, no award of compensation was made in respect of loss of earnings. The Tribunal made an award of injury to feelings, which is not impacted by the amount earned per hour, or any pay increments.[13]The Tribunal carefully considered quantum and found that lost earnings did not flow from discrimination.[14]There is therefore no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked on the above basis.[15]The Claimant’s application for reconsideration of the Judgment is therefore refused.