Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's comparator (Mr Palaima) was not in materially similar circumstances due to differences in seniority and disability-related adjustments. The tribunal concluded that the reason the claimant did not receive a flow-through job was the application of the resourcing policy based on seniority, not race. There was insufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof, and the tribunal was satisfied the treatment was in no sense because of the claimant's race.
The alleged detriment (being placed on the surplus list) occurred on 18 September 2023, but the protected act (the grievance) was not made until 2 October 2023. Chronologically, the protected act could not have caused the detriment. Additionally, the tribunal found the reason for being placed on surplus was unrelated to the protected act and was due to the claimant's seniority and rejection of the offered role.
Facts
The claimant, an Operational Postal Grade employee at Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre, was not given a flow-through role during a 2023 shift revision. He compared his treatment to that of a white colleague, Mr Palaima, who was allocated a role. The claimant had a seniority number of 1044 out of 1200 employees. Following the revision, he was placed on a surplus list after rejecting the role offered to him. He raised a grievance on 2 October 2023 alleging race discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The direct race discrimination claim failed because the comparator was not in materially similar circumstances (different seniority and disability adjustments), and the tribunal found the reason for the treatment was the application of a seniority-based policy, not race. The victimisation claim failed because the alleged detriment (being placed on surplus) occurred before the protected act (the grievance), making causation impossible.
Practical note
In discrimination claims arising from workplace restructuring, material differences in circumstances such as seniority or disability-related adjustments will defeat comparator arguments, and chronology is fatal to victimisation claims where the detriment precedes the protected act.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301215/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Operational Postal Grade
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep