(1) Mrs Shalina Vales (2) Mrs Elda D’sa (3) Mrs Santana Fernandes (4) Mr Joseph Falcao v Serco Limited Hearing: 2, 3 and 4 February 2026 — 2026

This was a judicial assessment based on witness statements and documents, without oral evidence. The tribunal assessed the four claimants' claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and direct race discrimination as having little or no reasonable prospect of success; it did not record a final disposal or award a remedy.

Serco dismissed the claimants without notice after water-temperature monitors indicated that taps and showers had not been flushed on days when the claimants were responsible for that work, although they had signed Legionella Prevention Records indicating that flushing had been completed. The tribunal found the evidence about the monitors compelling. Mr Ian Marsh and Mr Dane Chambers had tested them independently, and the resulting records showed their test flushes while showing no flushes on the relevant dates.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal assessed misconduct as the likely reason for dismissal and found no reasonable prospect of showing that the true reason was the claimants' Goan Indian status, a plan to reduce staff numbers, or a wish to avoid redundancy payments. It considered that Serco had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief and a reasonable investigation. Dismissal also fell within the range of reasonable responses because Serco's policy identified falsification of company documents and serious health and safety infringements as possible gross misconduct, and Serco relied on the claimants to carry out a safety-critical task. The tribunal stressed that the main reason for dismissal was signing the records when flushing had not occurred, rather than the failure to flush alone.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal assessed that Serco would establish on the balance of probabilities that the claimants had wilfully disobeyed the instruction to flush the taps and then recorded that they had done so. It therefore concluded that the wrongful dismissal claims had no reasonable prospect of success. No compensation or other remedy was considered.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found no evidence linking the purchase, installation or location of the monitors to the claimants' race. It also found no evidential basis for the allegations that Serco made or publicised accusations because of race. Lucy Ball, a white Caucasian cleaner, was dismissed for the same conduct, while disciplinary action against a Goan cleaner who had not signed a record was discontinued. The tribunal therefore assessed the allegations concerning surveillance, disciplinary accusations, public disclosure and dismissal as having little reasonable prospect of success.