Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimants' test scores were correct 'Sten scores' derived from an algorithm comparing performance against a norm group, not marks out of 16 as alleged. There was no evidence managers at the NDC falsified scores, as they had no access to the recruitment system. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in treatment between Black and non-Black agency applicants. At least 45% of non-Black agency workers also scored 3 or less and were not interviewed.
The tribunal accepted the October 2019 petition and communications with the MP were protected acts, but found the alleged detriments (incorrect scoring, not being invited to interview, not getting permanent posts) did not occur as the scores were correct. There was no evidence that recruitment team members with access to test data had knowledge of the protected acts. The September 2021 petition was found not to be a protected act as it concerned shift priority, not race discrimination.
Facts
Twelve Black agency mail processors employed by Angard (a Royal Mail subsidiary) applied for permanent positions at the National Distribution Centre in November 2021. All completed online tests administered by Clevry and received low scores (mostly 1 out of 10 on a 'Sten' scale). They were not invited to interview. The claimants believed they were marked out of 16 (the number of questions) and that their marks had been falsified by managers due to their race. Some had signed a 2019 petition and contacted their MP about racial discrimination in recruitment. They received their scores via ACAS in April 2022 and brought tribunal claims.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the scores were correct 'Sten scores' generated by an algorithm comparing performance to a norm group, not marks out of 16. No manager at the NDC had access to falsify scores. Statistical evidence showed no less favourable treatment of Black applicants compared to non-Black applicants. The victimisation claim failed because the alleged detriments did not occur and there was no evidence recruitment staff knew of the protected acts.
Practical note
Misunderstanding of a scoring methodology (Sten scores vs raw marks) combined with poor communication from the employer about the recruitment process does not establish discrimination, even where claimants reasonably feel unfairly treated; objective evidence is required to shift the burden of proof.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305766/2022
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Mail processor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister