EAT Case Highlights Discrimination and Procedural Fairness in Employment Law

Citation: [2023] EAT 151
Judgment on


The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Ionel Ion v Citu Manufacturing Ltd & Anor [2023] offers insightful legal analysis surrounding employment law concerning claims of race discrimination, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, and indirect disability discrimination. The appeal addresses significant procedural concerns alongside substantive legal principles applied in employment cases.

Key Facts

Ionel Ion, a Romanian national employed by Citu Manufacturing Ltd, was dismissed ostensibly for redundancy but alleged race discrimination and whistleblowing as underlying reasons. There were also concerns regarding inadequate interpretation services during the tribunal hearing and restrictions on the cross-examination of the company’s cultural values.

Section 136 Equality Act 2010 - Burden of Proof in Discrimination Claims

The tribunal’s application of Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 was scrutinized. This provision shifts the burden of proof to the employer once a primae facie case of discrimination is established. The tribunal initially did not adequately assess whether the claimant’s redundancy could be inferred as discriminatory due to his nationality, nor did they seek cogent evidence from the respondent to prove the lack of discrimination.

Reasonable Adjustments and Indirect Disability Discrimination

The claim for not making reasonable adjustments due to the claimant’s sciatica condition was rejected by the tribunal due to a lack of employer awareness. However, the EAT identified the need for more thorough analysis, especially since knowledge is not required when determining indirect discrimination under the Equality Act.

Whistleblowing - Protected Disclosures

The claim for unfair dismissal tied to whistleblowing under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 lacked necessary factual findings. The tribunal did not establish whether there were qualifying disclosures by the claimant, which could have influenced his dismissal.

Procedural Irregularities

Procedural fairness concerns arose from the interpreter’s quality and the tribunal’s handling of the issue. The EAT drew from Perera and TS principles in immigration law, noting the importance of immediate address of translation quality in ensuring a fair trial. Furthermore, the EAT found that restrictions imposed on cross-examination breached procedural fairness as it pertained to potentially discriminatory criteria used for redundancy selection.


The EAT found legal errors in the application of discrimination analysis under Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and the consideration of the whistleblowing claim. The procedural irregularities involving interpretation and restricted cross-examination were deemed to contribute to an unfair hearing. Consequently, the case was remitted to a newly constituted employment tribunal for a full rehearing.


In the Ionel Ion v Citu Manufacturing Ltd & Anor case, key legal principles of discrimination law, whistleblowing, and unfair dismissal were at play, displaying the EAT’s stringent adherence to procedural propriety and evidence-based analysis. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for employment tribunals to scrupulously uphold fairness in both procedure and substance to ensure just determinations in the domain of employment disputes.

Related Summaries