Case 2305759/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Afari v ICTS (UK) Limited and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305759/2021
- Decision date
- 3 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella
- Panel members
- Prof. J. Ukemenam, Ms. J. Houzer
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr C. Afari
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre by CVP before Employment Judge Massarella with Prof. J. Ukemenam and Ms. J. Houzer, considered claims by Mr C. Afari, a security supervisor, against ICTS (UK) Limited (R1), Mr R. Frost (R2) and Corps Security (UK) Limited (R3). The Respondents conceded that the Claimant was a disabled person at the material time by reason of hypertension and depression. The factual context concerned the Claimant's short period of employment with R1 at an Amazon site in Dartford, his communications about his disability and adjustments, his removal from site in October 2021, the service provision change from R1 to R3 on 1 November 2021, and his dismissal on 3 November 2021.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant's employment did not transfer from R1 to R3 under TUPE because he was not assigned to the relevant grouping immediately before the transfer. It upheld the Claimant's claim that his dismissal by R1 was an act of victimisation. All other victimisation claims against R1, R2 and R3 were not well-founded and were dismissed. The disability discrimination claims (direct discrimination under s.13 and discrimination arising from disability under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010) against all three Respondents were dismissed.
The claims of unauthorised deduction from wages (including holiday pay) against R1 and the claim under the Working Time Regulations in respect of rest breaks were also dismissed as not well-founded. The extracted text sets out the Tribunal's reserved judgment and findings of fact but does not include a quantified remedy in the portion supplied; remedy figures were therefore not extracted.
Claims and outcomes
14 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Limited to the Claimant's victimisation claim against R1 in respect of his dismissal; all other victimisation claims against R1, R2 and R3 were dismissed. Remedy not separately quantified in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | All victimisation claims against R1, R2 and R3 other than the dismissal-related claim against R1 were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination claims (including s.13 direct discrimination and s.15 discrimination arising from disability) against R1, R2 and R3 were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of unauthorised deduction from wages (including holiday pay) against R1 were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was included within the unauthorised deduction from wages claim against R1 and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 4 TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 12 Working Time Regulations
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations
- Jakowlew v Nestor
- Robert Sage Limited t/a Prestige Nursing v O'Connell
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.