Case 3200018/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Rudy Saramandif v Keymed (Industrial & Industrial Equipment) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200018/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rudy Saramandif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRudy Saramandif was dismissed by Keymed (Industrial & Industrial Equipment) Ltd on 19 January 2021 after a written warning on 20 October 2020 and a final written warning on 25 November 2020 about output. His appeal against dismissal was rejected on 12 March 2021. He presented his ET1 on 6 January 2022, well after the limitation period had expired, and the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the unfair dismissal claim in time under section 111 ERA 1996. The tribunal also found that, even if that were wrong, the delay after the ACAS early conciliation process was not reasonable.
The tribunal held that the age and race discrimination claims were also out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the ET1 referred to dismissal by a white person and to abuse by a white technician, but found no credible reason for the delay and no factual basis showing that race or age was linked to the treatment complained of. The alleged abuse by the white technician was said to have occurred about six months before dismissal and was not treated as part of a continuing series of matters.
On merits, the tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had been given a written warning and a final written warning and had not set out any reason why the dismissal was unfair other than asserting race or age discrimination. It found the race discrimination allegation unsupported by any explanation of how race was said to have caused the detriment, and the age discrimination allegation unsupported by any factual link between age and dismissal, noting that the person said to have bullied the claimant also bullied a younger colleague. The arrears of pay / other payments issue was described as having no discernible basis and no issue to be determined. The respondent had sent a costs warning letter dated 4 July 2022 and was awarded £900 costs.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was dismissed on 19 January 2021 after warnings on 20 October 2020 and 25 November 2020, his appeal was rejected on 12 March 2021, and the ET1 was lodged on 6 January 2022. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, in any event, the post-deadline delay was not reasonable. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held the age discrimination complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It said the claimant alleged he was dismissed because he was older, but named no comparator and gave no factual basis linking age to dismissal. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It rejected the alleged link between race and detriment, noting the claimant said only that he had been dismissed by a white person and had been abused by a white technician, without explaining how that related to race. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was pleaded as arrears of pay and other payments said to be due. The tribunal said the claim form gave no indication of what the claim was, that there were no discernible claims, and that there was no issue to be determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 76
- Robinson v Bowskill & Ors (p/a Fairhill Medical Practice)
- BCC v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Afolabi
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
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.