Case 3200056/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdul Ashraf v Total Security Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200056/2022
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdul Ashraf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Abdul Ashraf, a security officer for Total Security Services Ltd, had complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and religion struck out at a preliminary hearing on 8 September 2022. The final hearing on 29 September 2022 therefore dealt only with his Working Time Regulations annual leave complaint and his breach of contract complaint about travel expenses.
On the travel expenses point, the tribunal found there was nothing in the contract of employment requiring the respondent to pay bus fares or other travel costs. Mr Ashraf said he had heard from a Tesco manager that security officers were paid for travel, but the respondent disputed that and the judge dismissed the complaint at the outset.
On annual leave, the tribunal accepted that Mr Ashraf started work on 23 December 2015, signed a contract that referred to statutory holidays, and had access to an online portal, a call centre and his manager for holiday queries. It rejected his evidence that he did not know how to use the portal, and found the more likely explanation for his failure to take leave was that he mistakenly believed he would only be paid the five hours a week stated in his contract if he took time off. The judge accepted the portal record showing that on 6 March 2021 he was told he had 250 hours of holiday and needed to take it before the end of the holiday year.
Applying Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Grange v Abellio London Ltd, the tribunal held that the employer had not done enough to make the EU-derived leave right effective until March 2021, but that time then began to run. Because early conciliation did not begin until 25 November 2021 and the claim form was presented on 7 January 2022, the annual leave claim was out of time; the alternative extension argument under regulation 30(2)(b) also failed. The tribunal said that, but for the time limit point, it would only have made a declaration that basic leave under regulation 13 remained accrued, subject to leave actually taken, and no direct payment would have been available.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaint of discrimination on grounds of race; struck out by the tribunal at a preliminary hearing on 8 September 2022. No merits findings are recorded in this judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Complaint of discrimination on grounds of religion; struck out by the tribunal at a preliminary hearing on 8 September 2022. No merits findings are recorded in this judgment. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Working time regulations | Annual leave complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998. Dismissed as out of time under regulation 30; the tribunal found that time began to run by 6 March 2021 and that the claim presented on 7 January 2022 was outside the normal limitation period. An extension under regulation 30(2)(b) was also rejected. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint for travel expenses/bus fares. Dismissed because there was nothing in the contract of employment entitling the claimant to payment of travel expenses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
- Grange v Abellio London Ltd
- regulation 30(2)(b) reasonable practicability
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
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.