Claimant v Arriva Kent and Surrey Limited

An equal pay audit based on 'like work' was conducted which resulted in a payment of £5,168.84 to Miss Mallik in August 2022. The Tribunal made a declaration as to the rights of the parties under section 132(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The only factual complaint concerned lack of welfare meetings during ill-health absence in October/November 2021. The Tribunal found no evidence suggesting mental health was a factor in the absence of welfare contact; managers were reluctant to engage given the numerous grievances Miss Mallik had raised. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.

The claim concerned lack of welfare meetings. The Tribunal found the company had a general practice of welfare meetings, so this was not a case of a practice disadvantaging her. The absence of contact was explained by the difficulty in finding someone willing to engage given the numerous grievances. The company acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The Tribunal found nothing to suggest Miss Mallik was treated differently to a hypothetical white person in the same circumstances. No mention of race was made at the time in any emails or grievances, only in the tribunal claim. There was nothing tangible to support race discrimination and nothing to shift the burden of proof.

The breach of contract claim related to being placed on special leave and refused return to work. The Tribunal found the decision fully justified in the circumstances and that Miss Mallik did nothing to call the need for it into question. No breach was found, and even if there had been, no financial compensation would be due.

Claims for overtime pay, travel expenses, and printing costs were dismissed. The Tribunal found no contractual right to self-authorised overtime; Miss Mallik's contract made no mention of overtime. Expenses are excluded from the definition of wages under s.27(2) ERA 1996. The claims that were in time failed on the merits; some were also out of time.

Miss Mallik claimed 19 days accrued annual leave while on special leave in the year to 31 March 2022. The Tribunal found she had reasonable opportunity to take holiday during this period and could have requested it. She was paid throughout. The Working Time Regulations only allow holiday payments on termination of employment.

The Tribunal found there was a near total breakdown in working relations constituting 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal. Mediation was repeatedly offered and refused. Redeployment was ruled out by Miss Mallik. The company acted reasonably; managers approached her concerns with exemplary patience and thoroughness. The dismissal was fair.