Case 2302864/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L D Ncube and six others v St George’s, University of London — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302864/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
- Panel members
- Ms N Beeston, Ms B Leverton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L D Ncube and six others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSeven security officers employed by Bidvest Noonan and working on St George’s, University of London sites alleged indirect race discrimination because their terms and conditions were less favourable than those of the university’s own employees, including in relation to pay increments, contractual sick pay, holiday and pension. The tribunal first dealt with a preliminary pleading dispute and permitted the respondent to advance justification, noting that the issue had been included in earlier draft lists of issues and that the claimants had not pressed the point earlier.
On s.41 Equality Act 2010, the majority found that although the claimants were contract workers and the university was the principal, the university had not discriminated against them under that provision because it was not itself "subjecting" them to the terms complained of; those terms were set between the claimants and BN. The tribunal then considered the main PCP as the university’s decision to keep some functions in-house and outsource others, resulting in different terms and conditions. It held that such a decision could amount to a PCP, but concluded that the PCP was not applied to anyone, including non-BME persons or the claimants, so the claim failed at that stage.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that if the PCP had been applied, it would have put BME outsourced workers at a particular disadvantage compared with non-BME in-house staff. It identified a comparison pool of in-house employees in grades 1 to 3 and accepted that the only material difference between the groups was the lack of parity in terms and conditions. On justification, the majority accepted the respondent’s aims of delivering an adequate security service, maintaining its medical education function, and balancing its budget, and held that outsourcing and not harmonising the terms were proportionate means of achieving those aims. Employment Judge O’Rourke dissented on proportionality, saying the evidence was insufficient and that a fair and detailed analysis required more material.
The indirect race discrimination claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Collective indirect race discrimination claim brought by seven claimants. The tribunal allowed the respondent to rely on justification, but ultimately dismissed the claim; the majority also held the s.41 contract-worker route did not assist the claimants and, alternatively, that the alleged PCP was not applied. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.41 Equality Act 2010 contract worker provisions
- s.19 Equality Act 2010 indirect discrimination test
- s.23 Equality Act 2010 material difference test
- Ishola v Transport for London PCP definition
- Essop v Home Office causal link and disadvantage
- Homer proportionality test
- Hardy & Hansons v Lax proportionality analysis
- Shamoon detriment test
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.