In Mr James Joseph v Wincanton Group Ltd, a black lorry driver has won his race discrimination claim after the Respondent didn’t realise he went on sick leave and dismissed him for going AWOL. The tribunal determined a white comparator wouldn’t have been dismissed under the same circumstances, upholding his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

Read on as we examine what happened and the reasoning behind the tribunal’s decision. We then examine the relevant UK laws and outline the steps others affected by such conduct can take to seek justice.

If you believe you’ve faced discrimination or other unfavourable treatment at work, contact us. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists, and following a brief consultation, we can provide expert advice.

To get started, simply:

• Call us on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback by completing our online form with your details

The Facts in Mr James Joseph v Wincanton Group Ltd

Background to the Race Discrimination Claim

Mr James Joseph (the “Claimant”) began working as a lorry driver for Wincanton Group Ltd (the “Respondent”) on 18 May 2021. Under the protected characteristic of race, he is black. This was an important detail in the claims he subsequently brought before the employment tribunal.

Read More: Rail Worker Jack Truman May Have Been Discriminated Against Following Failed Drug Test, EAT Rules

Throughout the Claimant’s employment, he raised a number of grievances, both individually and collectively. The reasons for his complaints varied, with issues concerning both his work and the alleged treatment he was experiencing.

Communication Confusion Leads to AWOL Letter

Issues eventually came to a head following various periods of sick leave. Due to work-related stress, the Claimant was initially signed off work from 27 February until 12 March 2024. However, the incident central to this case occurred on 19 April, when he emailed his line manager about his next sickness absence from that date until 15 May.

At that time, the line manager had begun paternity leave, meaning he didn’t see this email, but the Claimant was unaware of this. The Respondent consequently expected the Claimant to return to work on 20 April, and when he didn’t (after some unsuccessful attempts to contact him), a more senior manager sent him an absent without leave (AWOL) letter on 23 April.

This AWOL letter stated, “I write regarding your ongoing absence from work… You have not informed us of your intentions… As such, your absence is currently deemed as unauthorised.” It went on to state that if the Claimant didn’t contact the Respondent by 5:00 pm on 29 April, it would treat his lack of response as resignation. Unfortunately, this letter was allegedly never received by the Claimant, with it neither being tracked nor registered as delivered.

Concerned about the Claimant’s lack of response, the Respondent attempted to contact him on 29 April at his emergency telephone number. This number belonged to his elderly mother, though, who was unwell at the time and quickly hung up after answering. As far as the tribunal was concerned, this call was never relayed to the Claimant.

Employment Termination Leads to Race Discrimination Claim

Having received no response to the AWOL letter, the Respondent sent a further letter outlining the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 1 May. It attached the previous AWOL letter, along with its absence policy. Notably, this time the correspondence was sent via registered post.

The Claimant eventually saw this letter on 7 May and immediately called a union representative. Since the deadline for appeal had passed, he was advised not to appeal the termination decision. Instead, he subsequently initiated Acas early conciliation before pursuing his employment tribunal case, which included his race discrimination claim.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by assessing the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The Respondent contended that the Claimant had resigned; however, the tribunal dismissed this. This was because:

• At no point had the Claimant indicated a wish to resign,
• The Respondent was found to have inadequately attempted to contact him prior to making its decision, and
• The Respondent’s own absence policy wasn’t followed.

Read More: £264k Win: Unfairly Dismissed Cleaner Secures Massive Tribunal Payout

In light of this, the tribunal deemed the Claimant’s termination of employment unfair and upheld this claim, moving on to his race discrimination claim. Here, it assessed various “evidential” and “hypothetical” comparators, particularly regarding the treatment of other white employees.

A white colleague who’d previously provided no contact, for example, was only sent an AWOL letter some five weeks later. Furthermore, although the Claimant’s previous complaint of racism was never proven, the tribunal noted that the Respondent’s investigation into the matter was insufficient. Then, there was the fact that, while the Respondent had a diverse workforce, this diversity declined significantly with seniority.

Taken together, the tribunal therefore determined that the Claimant had been treated less favourably, and said treatment was, at least in part, influenced by his race. This consequently led to this claim also being successful.

Overall, the Claimant succeeded with his claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and direct race discrimination. A remedy hearing will now proceed to determine his compensation.

Bringing a Race Discrimination Claim

Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals are protected from discrimination on the grounds of their protected characteristics. Race is one such characteristic, and means individuals mustn’t face unfavourable treatment because of their colour, nationality or ethnic or national origin.

Unfavourable treatment could arise, for example, if an individual was overlooked for a promotion specifically because of their race, constituting direct discrimination. It could also occur if a policy that applies to everyone disproportionately impacts people of a particular race, this time amounting to indirect discrimination. However, if someone faced racist language or was left out of a workplace event after raising a discrimination complaint, this would instead constitute harassment and victimisation, respectively.

Should someone face unfavourable treatment because of their race, they may want to bring a race discrimination claim. That said, several other steps should be considered before doing so.

In the first instance, it’s often recommended to pursue resolution internally. This could involve having an informal chat with one’s manager or raising a formal grievance. While the latter places additional legal obligations on the employer, both options provide the opportunity to resolve the matter informally.

Where internal resolution is unsuitable or fails to provide a satisfactory outcome, though, Acas early conciliation may be the answer. This free and independent process provides another opportunity to resolve the matter informally and, crucially, is required before most tribunal claims can be brought.

As a last resort, individuals may then wish to consider pursuing employment tribunal proceedings. Strict time limits and eligibility criteria apply, but if successful, claimants could receive compensation.

Get Help with Redmans

If you believe you’ve faced race discrimination at work or been unfairly dismissed, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts, and following a brief consultation, we can provide specialist advice.

To learn more about the services we provide, simply:

• Call us directly on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a callback