Mr O Omgbuagu, lay representative For the v Mr M Ramsbottom, consultant — 2025

The claimant was employed by ICTS (UK) Limited as a security officer from 20 December 2022 until his summary dismissal on 19 February 2024. The tribunal found that he had booked holiday for 13 to 24 November 2023, then requested an additional day off on 10 November 2023. It found that the extra day was granted on the condition that he provide his flight details, and that when he later reported sick on 8 and 9 November and then said on 25 November that he could not work on 27 November because of a medical appointment, he never produced the flight tickets or any appointment letter for 27 November.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a return-to-work meeting, a disciplinary investigation and a hearing before Mr Ursan on 13 February 2024, followed by dismissal on 19 February 2024 for fundamental breach of contract. The appeal was heard by Mr Benwell on 8 March 2024 and was upheld, although the outcome letter was not sent to the claimant. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant accepted that he did not have two years' continuous service, and the tribunal held that the statutory exception he relied on did not apply. The claims for unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay also failed because they were unparticularised; in addition, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that holiday pay had been paid.

The direct race discrimination claim was brought on the basis that the dismissal was because of the claimant's race, which he described as black African. The tribunal rejected the suggested comparator case involving Mr Cox and found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. It held that the respondent had a clear non-racial explanation for the dismissal, namely that it believed the claimant had falsified sickness absence to travel early for his holiday and had refused to provide the requested flight tickets.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal applied the principles on repudiatory breach and found that the claimant's conduct was sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal. It found that he had deliberately failed to comply with a reasonable request to produce flight tickets, had been dishonest about the reason for his absence, and had undermined the mutual trust and confidence required by the contract. The claim of wrongful dismissal was therefore dismissed.