Case 3220022/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O I Okeke v CIS Security Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220022/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O I Okeke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's tribunal claim was received on 25 November 2020, following early conciliation on 18 and 19 November 2020. He said his employment ran from 24 June 2014 to 26 February 2020. The tribunal noted that he did not contact ACAS until almost nine months after his employment ended, so the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims were outside the three-month time limit unless he could show that it was not reasonably practicable to present them earlier.
The claimant relied on attempts to deal with an appeal, difficulty finding solicitors, hearing impairment, and ill health including Covid-related issues. The tribunal accepted that he had union representation throughout the disciplinary process, at dismissal, and on appeal. It found that his account of illness did not show incapacity during the relevant period, and it was not persuaded that his hearing difficulty prevented him from seeking advice. It also found that he could have sought advice or used the internet cafes he accepted were available to him. The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable to bring the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims in time and dismissed them.
The race discrimination claim was considered under the tribunal's discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The tribunal found no real explanation for the delay, noted that the alleged racist comments were not raised with the employer at the time and no grievance was brought, and treated those matters as relevant to credibility. It also recorded that the claim appeared weak, with some of the treatment complained of explained as treatment of TUPE'd staff rather than treatment connected with race.
Although the tribunal said the alleged comments would be serious if proved, it found the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent because it had no opportunity to investigate the allegations near the time. It was not just and equitable to extend time for the race claim, so that claim was also dismissed. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed on limitation or jurisdiction grounds.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the time limit; the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was brought outside the statutory time limit under s.23 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was brought more than three months after the last act complained of and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Adsa Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
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.