Among other claims, the Claimant complained that he was required to drive a faulty vehicle back to base while another employee had a van sent to recover his vehicle which merely had a flat tyre. It was his contention that the reason for the difference in treatment was his race. The ET held, in brief that the Claimant’s vehicle was drivable but the other vehicle had four slashed tyres and could not be expected to be driven.
The appeal was allowed to proceed to a Full Hearing following an assertion at the Rule 3(10) hearing that there was no evidence as to four slashed tyres, which had merely been an assertion by the solicitor advocate appearing for the Respondent. It was also pointed out that there had been an admission by the Respondent to an assertion in the ET1 that the other vehicle merely had a flat tyre, and the ET erred in allowing the Respondent to run the ‘slashed tyres’ argument without seeking to amend its ET3.
The notes of the Employment Judge established, the EAT held, that there was an evidential basis for the ET’s finding that four tyres had been slashed. The issues before the ET had been set out at a Preliminary Hearing and refined at the outset of the final hearing. The ET did not err in permitting the evidence to be adduced without amendment: the key question for it, so far as this head of claim was concerned, was the reason for the difference in treatment.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0012 – 20 – 1808
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.661651
