Mr A Yahaya v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2022

The claimant, a security officer, complained that the respondent had not offered him enough work to meet his contractual hours in May 2020 after the Job Centre Plus assignment reduced its security requirement during the first Covid lockdown. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that alternative shifts were offered at Dunham Massey, MCDA and De La Rue within the claimant's contractual mobility area, and found that the claimant refused two offers and did not return calls about the third. It found that sufficient appropriate work had been made available and that the alleged treatment did not happen as alleged.

On direct race discrimination, the Tribunal accepted that race was the protected characteristic relied on, but found no evidence from which it could conclude that the claimant had been treated less favourably than a comparable employee who did not share that characteristic. It also found that the invitation to an investigation meeting after the claimant left the workplace on 22 September 2020 arose from an unauthorised absence from site, that no further action was taken after investigation, and that the complaint was unsuccessful.

The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found that the claimant would have achieved his contractual hours had he accepted the work offered, and therefore no sum was properly payable for the claimed shortfall. The unpaid annual leave complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.