Mr Bendecict Komakech Obalobuk, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2024

The Claimant, Mr E Okot, was employed as a cleaning operative from November 2021. His ARC expired on 22 January 2022. The Tribunal found that the Respondent told him repeatedly that he needed to renew his right-to-work documentation, and that when he was asked to stand down from 22 January 2022 he did not provide the Respondent with renewed documents or evidence showing that he could work in the UK. It accepted that the Respondent always required hard-copy right-to-work documents and that it processed a leaver form in April 2022 because it believed the documents had not been provided.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the Tribunal held that the Claimant had not shown he was willing and able to work during the relevant period. Applying the principles in Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, it found that his failure to renew his ARC earlier was an avoidable impediment for which he was responsible. The Tribunal did not accept that a Home Office website link would have demonstrated his right to work, and it found that he never produced documents showing such a right between 22 January 2022 and 28 June 2022.

The notice pay claim also failed. The Tribunal held that the Claimant's failure to produce documents proving entitlement to work fundamentally undermined the employment relationship and amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. It found that the Respondent had not affirmed the contract despite the delay between the breach and the dismissal, and that it was entitled to accept the breach and bring the contract to an immediate end on 28 June 2022. On that basis, no notice pay was due.

The race discrimination claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the Respondent would have treated any comparator who was not Black African in the same way because the sole reason for dismissal was the failure to produce right-to-work documentation. It also rejected the allegation that the Claimant was allocated more difficult or more work than Indian-Goan colleagues, finding that tasks were shared within the team, that team members helped one another where needed, and that no less favourable treatment was proved. The Tribunal noted that it had sympathy for the Claimant's position while he was waiting for Home Office documents, but his legal claims failed.