Claimant v Activate Accident Repair Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant did not prove facts from which it could conclude that any less favourable treatment was because of his race. The evidence showed colleagues of different races were treated similarly, and managerial decisions were based on performance, operational needs, and probationary procedures rather than race.
The tribunal found the claimant did not prove facts from which it could conclude that any less favourable treatment was because of his religion (Islam). The evidence showed that treatment was consistent with how probationers and technicians were managed regardless of religion.
The tribunal found the conduct was not related to race. Even where unwanted conduct occurred, the claimant did not establish facts showing it was race-related. Additionally, the conduct did not meet the threshold of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment as required by s.26 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found the conduct was not related to religion. Even where unwanted conduct occurred, the claimant did not establish facts showing it was religion-related. Additionally, the conduct did not meet the threshold of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The respondent conceded two unauthorised deductions: (1) £298.06 deducted in July 2022 marked 'Previously Paid' which the respondent could not explain, and (2) £100 for failure to pay four night shift allowances of £25 each for shifts worked 1-4 August 2022. Other alleged deductions failed as they were either authorised by contract or did not occur.
The tribunal found the claimant had exceeded his accrued holiday entitlement by 3.7 days at termination. The respondent was contractually entitled to deduct for excess holiday taken (£691.90 based on daily rate of £187), and in fact deducted slightly less (£620.84). No holiday pay was due.
The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service as required by s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. Despite being given opportunity to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out, the claimant failed to do so.
Facts
The claimant, a Libyan Muslim MET Technician, was employed on night shift from March to August 2022. He brought complaints of race and religion discrimination and harassment based on 13 allegations including: being required to work alone, allocation of heavy mechanical work, criticism of performance, messy work bay, early probation review, and dismissal. He also claimed unauthorised deductions and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent said his employment was terminated during probation due to poor performance, sickness absence, and potential misconduct (taking Adblue).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all discrimination and harassment claims, finding the claimant did not prove facts to shift the burden of proof. Treatment was based on operational needs, performance concerns, and probationary procedures, not race or religion. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service. Two unauthorised deduction claims succeeded (totalling £398.06) where the respondent conceded. Holiday pay and other wage claims failed.
Practical note
In discrimination cases, a claimant's different protected characteristic alone is insufficient to shift the burden of proof; there must be facts suggesting treatment was because of (or related to) that characteristic, and evidence of similar treatment of comparators will defeat such claims.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 0.5 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2408785/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- automotive
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- MET Technician - Night Shift
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No