Agency machinist loses race discrimination claim over neighbour dispute with Polish co-worker
An experienced machinist from the Czech Republic claimed race discrimination after a dispute with Polish neighbours at work led to him being barred from the client site. The tribunal dismissed his claim, finding no evidence of race-based treatment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #harassment
- #agency-worker
- #attendance-record
- #client-request
Key facts
- The claimant is from the Czech Republic and worked as an agency machinist.
- He had a dispute with Polish neighbours who also worked at the same client site.
- The claimant was threatened by Worker D at work, leading to Worker D's suspension.
- The claimant was not allowed back to the Card Factory due to his attendance record.
- The respondent offered alternative work but it did not materialize.
- The tribunal found no evidence that any treatment was because of race.
Timeline
-
Registered with respondent
Claimant registered with Concept Recruitment Group Ltd at Wakefield branch.
-
Started at Card Factory
Claimant began working at Card Factory via the respondent.
-
Threatened by Worker D
Claimant secretly recorded Worker D threatening him; Worker D was suspended.
-
Assaulted and off sick
Claimant was assaulted on way to solicitor appointment, suffered broken bone, signed off sick.
-
Ready to return to work
Claimant emailed saying he was fit to work from 6 October.
-
Discussed return with Mr Cooper
Mr Cooper said claimant could not return to Card Factory due to duty of care; offered IFCO role.
-
Told only Card Factory roles available
Ms Stanway said only open roles were at Card Factory; advised registering elsewhere.
-
Final call with Mr Cooper
Mr Cooper confirmed client did not want claimant back due to attendance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the recruitment agency directly discriminated against the claimant because of his Czech nationality or harassed him related to race, when a Polish co-worker threatened him and the agency later refused to place him back at the same client site.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was threatened by a Polish co-worker, but the agency suspended that worker and offered alternative work.
- The claimant was not allowed back to the client due to his attendance record, not his race.
- There was no evidence that any treatment was because of the claimant's Czech nationality.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers should be aware that a client's refusal to accept them due to attendance can be a legitimate business decision, not discrimination.
- Recording conversations can help prove your case, but the content must show a link to a protected characteristic like race.
- If you have a dispute with a colleague of a different nationality, you need evidence that any negative treatment is because of your race, not just the dispute itself.
- Employment tribunals will look at the real reason for decisions – here, attendance issues were key, not nationality.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the difficulty of proving race discrimination when a workplace dispute involves people of different nationalities. The claimant, an experienced machinist from the Czech Republic, had a falling-out with Polish neighbours who also worked at the same client site. After one Polish worker threatened him, the agency suspended that worker – but the claimant was not allowed back to the client because of his poor attendance record. The tribunal accepted that the client had requested the claimant not return due to attendance, not his nationality.
What the agency could have done differently
The agency's response was reasonable: it suspended the threatening worker and offered alternative roles. However, the alternative work did not materialise, and the claimant was left without work. The agency could have been more proactive in finding a suitable placement or explaining the client's decision more clearly. But the tribunal found no evidence of race-based treatment.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that not every cross-cultural conflict at work amounts to race discrimination. Tribunals will examine the real reasons behind decisions – here, attendance and client preference were decisive. Claimants must show that race was a factor, not just that they had a dispute with someone of a different nationality.
Similar cases
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Sonographer forced to clean and threatened with deportation: race discrimination upheld
A black African sonographer was racially harassed and discriminated against after being required to perform cleaning duties and threatened with deportation. The tribunal awarded £33,611.12.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.