MR T YOUSSEF v BIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2000] UKEAT 1076_99_1605

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] EAT 1076_99_1605Case No Appeal No. EAT/1076/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR T YOUSSEFAPPELLANTBIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTDRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge H Wilson Mr P A L ParkerDate 16 May 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MS N BRAGANZA (of Counsel) Instructed by: Commission for Racial Equality Elliot House 10-12 Allington Street London SW2E 5HE For the Respondent MR C BREEN (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Elliotts Solicitors Centurion House Deansgate Manchester M3 3WT JUDGE H WILSON: This has been the hearing of full argument on the Appellant's appeal against the finding of the Employment Tribunal that his claim alleging discrimination on the grounds of race should be dismissed. The Appellant is being represented today by Ms Braganza and the Respondent by Mr Breen who represented the Respondent before the Tribunal. For reasons, which I shall allude to later in this judgment, having considered the skeleton arguments and the submissions made to us by the advocates on each side, we have concluded that there is merit in the appeal. We consider that the Employment Tribunal's decision is flawed on 3 main issues.[2]First, having found on primary facts which are set out in paragraph 9 of the decision that the Appellant had been treated less favourably, that is to say: He was discriminated against in that he was assaulted by Mr Brown Insulted by Mr Brown Teased by fellow workers because of his virginity Harassed by fellow workers, moving his caravan and shaking it when he was within it And having referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of King v Great Britain China Centre [1991] IRLR 513 , the Employment Tribunal failed to follow the guideline lists, set out by Lord Neil J in his judgment in that case. Those guidelines were expressly approved subsequently, by Lord Browne Wilkinson in the House of Lords case of Zafar v Glasgow City Council [1998] IRLR 36 . We note in passing that Mr Breen's reference to Seide v Gillette Industries Limited [1980] IRLR 427 has to be read in the light of and subject to those later authorities.