| Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd | |
|---|---|
 Weymouth | |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Citation(s) | [2019] IRLR 322 (EAT) |
| Keywords | |
| Discrimination, burden of proof, wages, holiday pay, contracts | |
Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd [2019] IRLR 322 (EAT) is a UK labour law case concerning unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Stefanko and two other colleagues, Woronowicz and Jonik who were originally from Poland claimed that they were unfairly dismissed, had not been paid wages, not been paid holiday pay, not been given written statements of their employment contracts, and suffered race discrimination from their employers at the Maritime Hotel in Weymouth. Two weeks after the Brexit poll, Woronowicz asked for her wages to be paid correctly and a manager, Mr Nicholas Doherty, told her “Fuck off from my hotel and take your Polish friends with you”. When Jonik and Stefanko subsequently approached Doherty, he mimicked a Polish accent. The claimants then were forced to pack their bags and leave the following morning. The employers argued that there was no dismissal, that it was not unfair, that they had paid wages fully, and that there was no race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal held that there was unfair dismissal, unlawful wage deductions, and failure to pay holiday pay, but not enough evidence of race discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal, with Stacey J giving judgment, held that there was sufficient evidence of race discrimination, and that the burden of proof was on the employer to show otherwise. Stacey J said the following:
6. The Respondents were not present today. The First Respondent is now in creditors' voluntary liquidation as of 19 February 2018 and the liquidator indicated he would not be taking part any further. There was no explanation from the Second Respondent as to why he is not here today, in his written answer to the appeal he seeks to uphold the Tribunal's decision and explains that he is not a racist by any means having employed many ethnic minorities over the years. He has paid the monies ordered by the Tribunal and the appeal is a set up to destroy him and his business. He resists the appeal. I am especially grateful to Dr McGaughey who has provided his services to the Claimants pro bono under the Free Representation Unit scheme.
The Employment Tribunal Judgment
7. The Claimants are of Polish national origin and were employed as waiting staff by the First Respondent, commencing on various dates from 21 April 2016 until their summary dismissal on 7 July 2016, at the First Respondent's hotel in Portland, Dorset. The Second Respondent, who stayed at the hotel was a hands-on manager and co-owner as Shareholder and Director of the First Respondent.
8. The Claimants were provided with accommodation at the hotel. None of them were given a section 1 statement of terms and conditions at any time during the course of their employment or thereafter.
9. It is evident from the Tribunal's Decision that the Claimants were not well treated by their employer and were frequently sworn at by the Second Respondent. When they objected to persistent shortfalls in their wages, late payment and a falsification of their wage slips, they were summarily dismissed on 7 July 2016 (two weeks after the Brexit referendum), told to pack their bags and leave the hotel immediately. They did as they were requested but with nowhere else to go, got into their vehicle and drove to Dover and onwards to Poland.
...
31. In considering an appeal of this nature, it is important to be clear of the distinction between an error of law and facts found by a Tribunal that it has been entitled to reach. Only the former is susceptible to interference by this Appeal Tribunal. It is easy to allege a misapplication of the burden of proof when the real criticism is merely a dislike of the Tribunal's legitimate findings. Where neither of the Respondents has participated much in the appeal it is also worth considering what points could have been made on their behalf.
...
33. I agree with Dr McGaughey's submission that when, as here, there are specific findings that comments have been made which appear on their face to be related to race and amount to less favourable treatment such as mimicking one Claimant's Polish accent and telling another to "Fuck off back to Poland" the Tribunal needed to have explained its reasoning as to how it applied the burden of proof and reached the conclusion that the dismissal had nothing whatsoever to do with race discrimination.
34. The difficulty is compounded by the Tribunal not having referred at all to the burden of proof provisions in its Decision or answered the questions it posed itself in paragraph 3 of its Judgment. Another troubling aspect is that the Claimants' evidence included many other allegations of the use of racial epithets by the Respondents and other race-tainted behaviour which have not been addressed by the Tribunal which did not make relevant findings one way or another on the specific allegations. It is therefore difficult to see how the Tribunal could conclude, as it did in paragraph 24, that "We have to say that we have received no evidence to suggest that the hypothetical comparator in similar circumstances … would have been treated [differently]". They had heard evidence, but it is unsure what they made of it.
35. Hale LJ's (as she then was) observations on the " Porcelli principle" and the useful rule of thumb that the more specific the insult and the injury by reference to a protected characteristic, the more persuasive must be the proof that the behaviour was completely unrelated to a protected characteristic in Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School [2001] EWCA Civ 1347 are apt in this regard. Especially since some of the comments or incidents appear overtly racial.
36. It could perhaps be argued on the Respondents' behalf that the finding at paragraph 21 that the only reason for the Claimants' dismissal is the whistleblowing effectively answers the Claimants' concerns since it makes an explicit finding of a non-racial and exclusive reason for the dismissal that in effect deals comprehensively with the race discrimination allegation. With some hesitation however, I would not have accepted the argument had the Respondents been here to make it. It is certainly a possibility, but without further explanation by the Tribunal it is not sufficient. It is also apparent from the claim form that the Claimants allege discrimination in both the fact of and manner of their dismissal, and the particularly brutal manner of dismissal has not been considered sufficiently by the Tribunal.
37. Overall, I therefore consider that there has been enough shown to me today by Dr McGaughey to say that the Tribunal has erred by failing to consider the burden of proof, failing to reach findings on material evidence and/or failed sufficiently to explain its reasons for its Judgment in order to be Meek-compliant. [lower-alpha 1] [2]
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.
The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.
Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in both England and Wales and Scotland that have statutory jurisdiction to hear disputes between employers and employees.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.
O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.
Commotion Ltd v Rutty [2006] IRLR 171 is an Employment Appeal Tribunal case in which an employer, who denied its staff flexible working time, was found in breach of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failing to have any lawful reason.
R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97 is a landmark case in United Kingdom labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying period had a disparate impact on women given that significantly fewer women worked long enough to be protected by the unfair dismissal law, but that the government could, at that point in the 1990s, succeed in an objective justification of increasing recruitment by employers.
Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd [2010] IRLR 486 is a UK labour law case, concerning disability discrimination.
Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 434 is a UK labour law case, concerning indirect discrimination on grounds of religion. The United Kingdom Employment Appeals Tribunal in London (EAT) dismissed the appeal in respect of discrimination and/or harassment, but awarded £1,100 to the plaintiff for victimisation, uprated by 10% as a result of the LEA's having failed to follow the statutory grievance protocol.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.
Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47 is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to equal treatment, wages, and the illegality principle.
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33 is a UK labour law case, concerning race discrimination and the burden of proof.