Claimant v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Tribunal found that giving Ms Taylor a pay rise was not a detriment to the claimant. The claimant did not apply for the lateral move role, so his circumstances were materially different from Ms Taylor's. Mr Rogan's decision to give Ms Taylor a pay rise was based on her performance, abilities, and skills, not race. The claimant's race played no part in his not receiving an increase.

The tribunal found no statistical evidence demonstrating that British Asian employees who applied for lateral moves were less likely to receive pay increases than white employees. The claimant suffered no disadvantage as he did not apply for the lateral move role. Even if there were evidence of group disadvantage, the claimant could not suffer that disadvantage because he chose not to apply.

The tribunal found the grievance procedures were conducted reasonably by Mr Howells, Mr Fisher, and Mr Bastiani. Delays were explained and not unreasonable, caused by both parties and complexity introduced by external involvement of Ms Boot and Ms Modeste. Decisions were based on sufficient evidence and were fair. The respondent established explanations that in no sense constituted victimisation.

While the claimant and Ms Taylor did like work at equal value, the tribunal found the respondent established a material factor defence under section 69 Equality Act 2010. Ms Taylor applied for a lateral move, was successful, and Mr Rogan exercised discretion within policy to increase her pay based on her performance, ability, skill, and experience. This factor did not involve treating the claimant less favourably because of sex. The claimant failed to establish particular disadvantage to men.