Case 2204749/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gillani v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204749/2021
- Decision date
- 7 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms C Ihnatowicz, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gillani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, a part-time Project Supervisor supervising people on probation, worked more than six hours when travel time was included and did not receive an uninterrupted 20-minute rest break away from work. His role fell within the regulation 21(b) exception because it required a permanent presence involving supervision for the protection of persons and, to some extent, property, but the respondent had not shown that equivalent compensatory rest was impossible. The Working Time Regulations claim therefore succeeded from 3 April 2021 onward only.
The part-time worker claim about non-payment for a First Aid training course in June 2019 was dismissed because it was brought significantly out of time. The tribunal considered the length of delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the fact that the claimant had been offered a grievance appeal resolution but did not resubmit the claim form requested by the respondent.
The indirect religion or belief discrimination claim about closing the Community Payback service over Easter 2021 was dismissed. The tribunal treated the Easter closure as a PCP for the purposes of analysis, but found that non-Christian staff were not placed at the required particular disadvantage and that the claimant personally was not disadvantaged because he had already booked leave on the relevant dates.
For victimisation, the respondent admitted that the claimant's March 2021 grievance was a protected act. Most alleged detriments were either not made out or were not found to be detriments; the tribunal did find that aspects of Ms Brown's handling of the flooding incident on 7 August 2021 amounted to a detriment, but concluded this was not because of the grievance and instead reflected the less than happy working relationship between them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998 rest-break claim succeeded only for the period from 3 April 2021 onward; remedy was left to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The claim of less favourable treatment under regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was dismissed as out of time, with no extension granted. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The indirect discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 concerned Easter closure compared with other religious periods and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted the grievance of 8 March 2021 was a protected act, but found the detriment it identified was not because of that grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 21(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 24 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Union Syndicale Solidaires Isere v Premier Ministre
- Scottish Ambulance Service v Truslove
- Grange v Abellio London Ltd
- Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services
- Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd
- Tyco Integrated Security
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London
- British Airways plc v Starmer
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- regulation 5 Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
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.