Ionel Ion v Citu Manufacturing Ltd & Anor
[2023] EAT 151
Virgin Active Limited v C Hughes
16 October 2023
[2023] EAT 130
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker was fired, claiming it was because he reported wrongdoing (whistleblowing) and because of racism. A judge agreed he was wrongly fired for whistleblowing, but said there were mistakes made deciding the racism claim, so that will be looked at again. The delay in the case didn't affect fairness.
Key Facts
- •Virgin Active Limited (Appellant) dismissed Mr C Hughes (Respondent) for alleged gross misconduct (racist comment and bullying).
- •Hughes claimed direct race discrimination, ordinary unfair dismissal, and automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing).
- •Hughes made covert recordings of disciplinary and appeal hearings.
- •Hughes alleged that the disciplinary process was orchestrated to justify his dismissal and conceal the true reason: whistleblowing.
- •The Employment Tribunal found in favor of Hughes on all three claims.
- •The Employment Tribunal found that Hughes' dismissal was primarily caused by his protected disclosures to the police and internal reports of fraud.
Legal Principles
Direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 13
Burden of proof in discrimination claims shifts to the respondent if the claimant establishes facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Equality Act 2010, section 136
Comparison with comparators in discrimination claims; material differences in circumstances must be considered.
Equality Act 2010, section 23
Protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 43B
Unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(2)(b)
Appeals based on unreasonable delay in promulgating an Employment Tribunal decision; the test is whether there's a real risk of being deprived of a fair trial.
Connex South Eastern Ltd v Bangs [2005] I.C.R. 763
Outcomes
Appeal against the findings of direct race discrimination allowed; remitted for rehearing.
The Employment Tribunal erred in its analysis of comparators and the shifting of the burden of proof.
Appeal against the findings on protected disclosure dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the legal test and made factual findings supported by evidence.
Appeal against the findings of unfair dismissal dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal's findings were not perverse and the delay did not cause a real risk of unfair trial.