Virgin Active Limited v C Hughes
[2023] EAT 130
Ionel Ion v Citu Manufacturing Ltd & Anor
14 December 2023
[2023] EAT 151
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. Ion lost his job and claimed unfair dismissal due to racism and for reporting wrongdoing. A first court didn't believe him. A higher court found the first court made serious mistakes and ordered a new trial, giving Mr. Ion a second chance to prove his case.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Ion, a Romanian national with limited English, was dismissed from CITU Manufacturing Ltd., ostensibly for redundancy.
- •He was a conscientious worker who often raised concerns and ideas, some of which were not well-received.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed his claims of race discrimination and whistleblowing.
- •The ET found that Mr. Ion was selected for redundancy due to his perceived disruptive attitude, contrary to the company's values.
- •The ET's judgment was criticised for procedural irregularities including poor interpretation and restricted cross-examination.
- •Mr. Ion appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Proper application of Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 in race discrimination claims.
Equality Act 2010
Two-stage approach in race discrimination claims as outlined in Igen v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142.
Igen v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142
Assessment of indirect disability discrimination under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
The onus of proof in whistleblowing claims under sections 103A and 105(6A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employment Rights Act 1996
The tribunal's duty to ensure a fair hearing, including addressing issues of interpretation.
Perera v Secretary of State for Home Dept [2004] EWCA Civ 1002 and TS v Secretary of State for Home Dept [2019] UKUT 00352 (IAC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in full.
The EAT found material procedural irregularities (poor interpretation and restricted cross-examination) and legal errors in the ET's application of the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 1996.
Remittal to a fresh ET.
The EAT considered that the procedural irregularities and legal errors fatally undermined the fairness of the original hearing.