Case 3201972/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Okpapi v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201972/2018
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Prichard Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Okpapi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a security guard at 1 Churchill Place and resigned by letter dated 9 August 2018, giving 3 September 2018 as his last day. The tribunal considered a series of disciplinary matters concerning vigilance and conduct while on duty, including an incident on 9 March 2018 where the respondent alleged that the claimant was distracted by a mobile phone or similar device while stationed by the turnstiles.
The tribunal found that the respondent had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract. It rejected the alleged breaches relied on for constructive dismissal, including complaints about the grievance process, suspension length, the restart of the disciplinary process, the phone or calculator allegation, and the respondent's handling of photographs taken by a senior manager. The tribunal found that restarting the disciplinary process after the grievance and appeal had concluded was justified and that the claimant had not established a fundamental breach, whether individually or cumulatively.
The arrears of pay claim succeeded only in the sum of £1,624.32 after the tribunal proposed a detailed calculation of basic pay during the suspension period. The tribunal dismissed the accrued holiday pay claim because the claimant had received his full entitlement, dismissed the overtime claim because overtime was not a contractual entitlement, and dismissed the notice pay claim because the constructive dismissal claim failed. The race discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was not constructively dismissed and the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay succeeded in the sum of £1,624.32 after a fortnight-by-fortnight analysis of basic pay during suspension. | Upheld | — | £1,624 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had been paid his full accrued holiday pay entitlement up to 3 September 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The overtime pay claim for three days was dismissed because overtime was not a contractual entitlement for the relevant dates. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim was dismissed because it depended on the constructive dismissal claim, which failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,624
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- BCCI v Malik [1997] IRLR 462 HL
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2005] ICR 481 CA
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978 CA
- Western Excavating (ECC) v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27 CA
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.