Mr S Z Hussain v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed as a security guard and brought complaints of victimisation and unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found that two complaints in 2019, a written grievance of 11 July 2019 referring to racism and an email of 7 October 2019 referring to racism, were protected acts. Other alleged protected acts were not established or did not refer to a protected characteristic in a way that brought them within section 27 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal rejected the victimisation complaint. It found that the respondent had sought to engage with earlier grievances informally, that the claimant was removed from the Ford Dagenham site because of an allegation that he had been asleep on duty, and that later discussion of historical complaints, the grievance outcome, the casual contract, and the intranet update reflected the respondent's understanding of the employment position rather than being because of protected acts.

On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant had been on a contract guaranteeing 182 hours per month until 19 June 2020, when he agreed to return to a casual work contract after being told of the sleeping-on-duty allegation, the closure of Gate 17, and possible alternative assignments at Denton or Tilbury. Any earlier potential deductions were either outside the tribunal's two-year jurisdictional limit or not part of a continuing series, and the claims for alleged deductions crystallising in April and July 2020 were presented out of time. The tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present those claims in time, so the wages claim was dismissed.