Case 1403637/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Altun v Staffline Recruitment Limited and 4 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403637/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr L Wakeman, Mr J Ruddick
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms S Altun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Southampton Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Hay sat with Mr L Wakeman and Mr J Ruddick to hear Ms S Altun's claims against Staffline Recruitment Ltd and four individual respondents over 17-21 February and 6-7 March 2025. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint, the harassment complaints related to race and religious belief, the direct discrimination complaints on the grounds of race and religious belief, the victimisation complaints, and the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages were all found not well-founded and dismissed.
The decision record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to race and religious belief. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint on the grounds of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint on the grounds of religious belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.