The claimant is a black Spanish National who was originally from Guinea-Bissau.  The first respondent is a recruitment agency who the claimant had engaged with in relation to ‘process operative’ jobs.  The second respondent is an Account Co-ordinator for Greiner Packaging and had worked in the Industrial Temps offices in her role overseeing recruitment, registration, testing and inducting workers into Greiner Packaging and Linden Food.

The issue arose when the claimant registered through Facebook with Industrial Temps looking for work in Greiner Packaging.  There was some confusion at first instance with the claimant believing that she would be meeting the second respondent at the Industrial Temps office in Portadown, but it was actually supposed to be at Greiner Packaging.   Despite the confusion, a meeting was later organised between the two.  On her registration, it was recorded that the claimant had an interest in working at Geiner but also Linden Foods.  At the meeting, she had to fill out registration papers which required further detail.  For instance, this asked about transport to which the claimant answered yes and ‘car’.   The second respondent outlined that there were no roles available in Greiner for her but that there was another job in Linden Foods that she could take.   In the claimant’s evidence she stated that Linden Foods would not be workable for her as she could only walk, and it was a 20 minute drive whereas Greiner was a 20 minute walk from her house.

Whilst the claimant was completing the Linden Foods test, three people came into the office whom she described as ‘white skinned’.   They were asked about their availability and were given documents about registration for Greiner.    The claimant felt that this demonstrated that there were roles within Greiner, but she had been overlooked.  In terms of the Linden Foods test it was completed with the claimant being informed that Imra Katke would be in touch who was in charge of recruitment at Linden.  The claimant had her cousin call and enquire about the position at Greiner where he was invited to register online.   On foot of this, the claimant complained and emailed stating that unless something was done about it, she would have to take legal action.

Following a solicitor’s letter to Industrial Temps there were attempts to organise a meeting, but they were rejected by the claimant as she wanted a reply to the letter first.  Furthermore, she was requested to sit the test for Greiner, but she rejected this stating she did not trust the second respondent any longer.   The first respondent did respond to the accusations stating that as the claimant was requesting ‘immediate’ engagement that is why she had been told that there were no vacancies at Greiner and was invited to apply for Linden Foods.  They also outlined that 80% of the workers at Greiner were non-nationals and 45% were females.

The claimant sought funding from the Equality Commission and a legal officer was assigned to her case.  The claimant stated that she had still not received an ET3, but it transpired that there was never any ET1 lodged.  There was confusion in relation to this.   The ET1 was only lodged on 25th May 2019 and the complaint had occurred in early February.  The Tribunal held on the time-limit issue that it would use its discretion to extend the time limit.  They acknowledged that the claimant could have received information from CAB, the solicitor or the Equality Commission in terms of time limits but accepted her evidence that she was only made aware of it on 24th May 2019.  The fact she lodged the ET1 the next day was demonstrable of her promptness.

On the discrimination claim, the Tribunal outlined that there was no sufficient evidence demonstrating that the claimant was treated differently from anyone else on racial grounds.  Therefore, there was no prima facie case, so the burden did not shift to the respondents to prove there was no discrimination.  The case was therefore dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the hurdle that must be overcome by claimants and a misunderstood assumption that decisions have been made based upon some characteristic such as race will not be sufficient in overcoming that threshold.   As seen with the first respondent’s method of dealing with the complaint they offered to meet with the claimant and addressed those concerns in a cordial manner yet standing resolute to their assertion that there was no discrimination.