Mecca Leisure Group Plc v Chatprachong

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, originally from Thailand and employed in the gaming industry since 1980, brought an originating application dated 11th April 1990 alleging racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 related to his dismissal by Company A on 21st January 1990. The Applicant held a green certificate required for his position and had worked for Company A since January 1989 following its acquisition of Pleasurama Casino Ltd. The Industrial Tribunal at Leeds found in favour of the Applicant on claims of racial abuse and lack of effective equal opportunities policy but dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. Company A appealed against the Tribunal's decision, while the Applicant did not appeal.

The Applicant alleged three main complaints: (1) dismissal on racial grounds, (2) racial abuse by the general manager, and (3) denial of access or sufficient access to promotion and training opportunities due to an ineffective equal opportunities policy. The Tribunal found racial abuse and lack of effective equal opportunities policy but rejected the claim that dismissal was racially motivated.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant was unlawfully dismissed on racial grounds contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.
2. Whether the Applicant was subjected to racial abuse amounting to unlawful discrimination under the Act.
3. Whether the Applicant was denied access or sufficient access to opportunities for promotion or training due to failure of the Respondent to provide an effective equal opportunities policy, contrary to section 4(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The dismissal was not racially motivated but was due to gross misconduct involving playing a prohibited card game with patrons, risking the gaming licence.
• There was no evidence of distress or detriment caused by the alleged racial abuse and no defence was offered under section 32(3) of the Act.
• The Tribunal erred in law by failing to identify appropriate comparators and the timing of alleged less favourable treatment regarding training and promotion opportunities.
• The absence of special language training was not unlawful discrimination but rather a lack of obligation to provide education, and any language difficulties could have been addressed by external courses.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Applicant suffered direct racial discrimination through dismissal, racial abuse, and denial of opportunities for promotion and training.
• The general manager used racially abusive language in the presence of customers and towards the Applicant’s spouse.
• The Respondents lacked an effective equal opportunities policy and failed to provide sufficient training, including for language skills, necessary for advancement.
• The Applicant was adversely affected by the Respondents’ failure to facilitate his progress towards obtaining a grey certificate, which involved an oral examination requiring clear English communication.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the three main areas of complaint separately. First, regarding racial abuse, the Tribunal’s findings that the general manager used racially abusive language towards the Applicant and his wife were upheld. The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that no detriment was shown, holding that the abuse constituted unlawful racial discrimination under the Act.

Second, on the dismissal issue, the Court found that the Applicant was dismissed for gross misconduct related to playing a prohibited card game with patrons, which risked the gaming licence. The Applicant’s evidence was disbelieved on this point. The Tribunal’s finding that the dismissal was not racially motivated and was fair was upheld, with no error of law found.

Third, concerning the denial of access to promotion and training, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to identify a proper comparator and the timing of the alleged less favourable treatment. The Applicant’s limited spoken English was acknowledged, but the Court noted no policy or practice existed at Company A to provide language training to any staff, and external courses were available. The Tribunal’s conclusion that Company A lacked an effective equal opportunities policy was not sufficient to establish unlawful discrimination without a proper comparator and evidence of less favourable treatment caused by race. The Court allowed the appeal on this issue and found no breach of section 4(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Court emphasised that to establish direct discrimination, the Applicant must prove on the balance of probabilities that he was treated less favourably than others in similar circumstances and that the cause was racial grounds. The absence of such proof on the training and promotion issue was fatal to that part of the claim.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to allow the appeal in part and dismiss it in part as follows:

• The appeal against the finding of racial abuse was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal’s finding of unlawful racial discrimination in that respect.
• The appeal against the dismissal was dismissed, confirming the dismissal was fair and not racially motivated.
• The appeal was allowed on the issue of denial of access to promotion and training, with the Court finding no breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 in this regard due to lack of comparator and evidence of causation.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant’s claim for racial abuse stands, but his claim relating to dismissal and denial of training and promotion opportunities fails. No new legal precedent was established beyond clarification of the application of comparator principles in discrimination claims.