Case 2208839/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Piasecki v Imperial Treasure (UK) Co Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2208839/2022
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Mr Chaumont-Rambert, Ms Clarke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Piasecki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London Central Employment Tribunal on 7, 8, 9 and 10 May 2024, with Employment Judge Akhtar sitting with members Mr Chaumont-Rambert and Ms Clarke. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the complaints of harassment related to race were not well-founded and were dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination, again finding them not well-founded.
A further complaint of breach of contract, said to concern notice pay and tronc pay, was also found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay and tronc pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.