Country Style Foods Ltd v Bouzir

In a discrimination claim under the Race Relations Act 1976, a tribunal must address the statutory burden of proof in two stages. It must first decide whether the claimant has proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred in the absence of an adequate explanation. If so, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that the discriminatory act was not committed. A tribunal errs in law if it goes straight to asking whether the claimant has proved discrimination and fails to determine whether the burden has shifted. Appellate courts must respect the tribunal’s fact-finding role, but may intervene for an error of law.

The claimant, an Algerian citizen, applied unsuccessfully for a production operative position with the appellant company. He alleged race discrimination on grounds of national origins. An Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim, although it upheld his wife’s separate complaint of religious discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal, held that the tribunal had not properly applied the statutory burden of proof, and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal. The company appealed to the Court of Appeal, which considered whether the Employment Tribunal had correctly applied section 54A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was right to allow the claimant’s appeal and remit the matter to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.
2. The Employment Tribunal had correctly directed itself on the relevant law, including the guidance in Igen v Wong, and appellate courts must read its judgment fairly and reasonably. They must respect the tribunal’s role as the fact-finding body and avoid substituting their own findings. Their intervention is confined to errors of law.
3. Section 54A(2) required the Employment Tribunal first to decide whether the claimant had proved facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that he had been treated less favourably on grounds of his national origins. Only if that threshold was established would the burden shift to the company to prove that it had not committed the discriminatory act.
4. On a natural reading, the tribunal’s reasons placed the burden on the claimant throughout and moved directly to whether he had proved race discrimination. It failed to determine the prior question whether the burden had shifted. That was an error of law.
5. The unfinished interview, failure to notify the claimant about induction, failure to answer the questionnaires, inaccurate explanation letter, and failure to disclose relevant documents were facts from which discrimination could have been inferred in the absence of an adequate explanation. The case therefore required rehearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by failing to apply the statutory burden of proof and confirmed the order for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal from the Employment Tribunal allowed and the claim remitted for rehearing. Citation: UKEAT/0310/10/JOJ.
• Employment Tribunal: The claimant’s race discrimination complaint was dismissed. The tribunal separately upheld his wife’s unappealed religious discrimination complaint.