Case 3313842/2019 · Employment Tribunal
MR Z MAMO v LHR Airports Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313842/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Boustred, Mr Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR Z MAMO
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims against LHR Airports Ltd for unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal for trade union activities, detriment on the grounds of trade union activities, and direct race discrimination.
The judgment states that each of the listed claims was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record does not contain reasons beyond recording that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for unfair dismissal contrary to s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Claim for unfair dismissal for trade union activities contrary to s.152 TULR(C)A was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Claim for detriment on the grounds of trade union activities contrary to s.146 TULR(C)A was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim for direct race discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.152 TULR(C)A
- s.146 TULR(C)A
- Equality Act 2010
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.