Case 1803843/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v G4S Facilities Management (UK) Ltd and Randstad CPE Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803843/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted by telephone before Employment Judge Shulman. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. Randstad CPE Limited was dismissed from the proceedings.
The tribunal dismissed the claims recorded in the judgment as unfair dismissal, claims under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, health and safety-related claims, and wrongful dismissal. The short written record does not set out the underlying factual findings or legal reasoning for those dismissals, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record groups this with the other heads and does not set out separate factual findings or reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | The judgment states that claims under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 were dismissed, but does not disaggregate the factual basis further. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The written record refers to a health and safety-related claim in the same sentence, but does not identify a separate statutory label in the text supplied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The written record states that the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and gives no separate factual summary. | 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.
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.