Case 2307617/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Adirazak Ibrahim v London United Busways Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2307617/2020
- Decision date
- 6 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs. R. Bailey, Mr. S. Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Adirazak Ibrahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a bus driver, was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to undertake an alcohol breath test following an at-fault collision on the respondent's garage forecourt. The tribunal found the respondent's contract and policies allowed alcohol and drug testing, treated refusal to comply as gross misconduct, and that the claimant admitted not providing the breath test. It found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, a reasonable investigation, and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The claimant's direct race and religion or belief discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found the 6 July 2020 drug test was randomly generated, that employees with different protected characteristics were selected, and that the requirement to provide a breath test after the 20 July 2020 collision was connected to the collision and the respondent's safety policy rather than to race or religion. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant was offered the opportunity to have a colleague present for the breath test.
The victimisation complaint was dismissed because, although the bundle contained a grievance dated 8 July 2020, the tribunal accepted the respondent witnesses' evidence that they were unaware of it before disclosure in the tribunal proceedings. The unlawful deductions complaint was also dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had been paid all monies owed on termination and was not owed one week's pay for rest days while suspended.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct, namely refusal to follow an alcohol screening test on 20 July 2020, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's race played a part in the random drug test, the later requirement to provide a breath test, or related treatment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's religion or belief played a part in the random drug test, the later requirement to provide a breath test, or related treatment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the relevant decision-makers were unaware of the grievance said to be a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was paid all monies owed on termination and was not entitled to pay for rest days while suspended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Boys and Girls Welfare Society v Macdonald
- ACAS Code of Practice for Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Hewage v GHB
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Qureshi v London Borough of Newham
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Beneviste v Kingston University
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.