In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, an Area Relief Security Officer for the respondent, brought claims about holiday pay, bank-holiday pay, cancelled shifts, rest breaks at Bradford Royal Infirmary, and direct race discrimination. The tribunal dismissed the 2019 holiday pay claim, the cancelled-shift claim, the rest-break claim, and the race discrimination claim. It upheld the 2020 holiday pay claim and the Greencore bank-holiday pay claim, but recorded that the relevant sums had already been paid and that no further compensation was payable because no additional financial loss was proved.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant's entitlement was 5.6 weeks' leave, not a flat 28 days, and that in 2019 he had already been paid 247 hours holiday pay. For 2020, it accepted that there had been an underpayment of £451.42 when the claim was presented, but that payment was made on 16 June 2021 and the claimant had not proved any further loss such as interest or other financial detriment. The bank-holiday claim for 31 December 2020 and 1 January 2021 was also upheld in principle because the claimant should have been paid double time, but the shortfall of £104.64 was paid in September 2021 and no further compensation was awarded.

The tribunal rejected the claim about five cancelled shifts in 2020. It found that the claimant had not worked those shifts because they had been cancelled, and that the proper complaint would have been one in breach of contract and/or negligence, which the Employment Tribunal could not determine for an employee who remained employed. It also rejected the Bradford Royal Infirmary rest-break claim, holding that regulation 21(b) WTR applied to security work requiring a permanent presence and that the claimant could take compensatory rest during the shift.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant is a German national of black African racial origins, but it found no facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. It accepted that the holiday-pay issue was a genuine mistake and that the later correction had nothing to do with race, that the Xuber DXE hours issue arose from a genuine Working Time Regulations concern, and that the shortfall in shifts was managed day to day by AOCs rather than Mr Jones. It also noted that the 2019 Xuber DXE allegations were substantially out of time and that it would not have extended time on the basis advanced by the claimant.