Case 3315303/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315303/2022
- Decision date
- 1 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms M Castro, Mr L Hoey
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Fahad Buyungo, brought claims of direct race and sex discrimination, harassment related to race, holiday pay, unauthorised deduction of wages and breach of contract against DHL Services Ltd, arising from his engagement first as an agency worker from 1 March 2021 and then as a permanent employee from 1 February 2022 until his resignation with immediate effect on 3 October 2022. The tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Alliott with members Ms M Castro and Mr L Hoey, considered nine specific allegations of less favourable treatment together with a single harassment allegation concerning a 19 November 2021 exchange.
On the facts, the tribunal found that the various incidents either did not occur as alleged, had non-discriminatory explanations, or did not amount to less favourable treatment because of race or sex. The harassment allegation failed because the tribunal found the exchange between the claimant and a controller was not related to race. The discrimination and harassment claims were accordingly dismissed.
On holiday pay, the respondent accepted that £817.70 of accrued holiday entitlement (74 hours at £11.05) was unpaid at termination, and the tribunal granted a declaration to that effect. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant had been overpaid £911.58 in September 2022 relative to his contractual sick pay entitlement, which on the respondent's best-case calculation should have been £1,243.17 against the £2,154.75 actually paid. Setting the overpayment against the holiday pay due produced a nil monetary award. The unauthorised deduction of wages and breach of contract claims were dismissed, and the respondent's counterclaim was dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims under s.13 Equality Act 2010 covering allegations 2.2.1-2.2.9 were not proved on the facts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 (allegation 2.2.2 only) was not proved. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under s.26 Equality Act 2010 concerning the 19 November 2021 incident; tribunal found the conduct did not relate to the claimant's race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal granted a declaration that the respondent failed to pay £817.70 accrued holiday entitlement, but awarded £0 because an overpayment of £911.58 was set off. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations 1998 holiday pay claim; declaration granted but no monetary award after set-off of overpayment. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions claim under Part 2 ERA 1996 failed; tribunal found no unauthorised deduction occurred and the claimant had been overpaid relative to his contractual sick pay entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Part 2 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.