Tribunal Member G Powell Tribunal Member J Smillie Mr Mohcene Remmouche v Profile Security Services Limited — 2020

Mr Remmouche worked for the respondent from 1 July 2017 and transferred from Safe Hands Security Services Ltd to Profile Security Services Limited under TUPE on 26 November 2018. He resigned on 18 August 2019. At the hearing the age discrimination claim was treated as withdrawn, and the tribunal heard claims for unfair dismissal, marriage and civil partnership direct discrimination, marriage and civil partnership harassment, unpaid holiday pay, and unlawful deductions from wages.

The tribunal found that the claimant's contract required a minimum of 24 hours per week and that he was never worked below that level. His complaint about Tuesday shifts was linked to childcare arrangements because his wife worked on Tuesdays, not to his marital status. The direct discrimination claim therefore failed because the claimant produced no evidence that any less favourable treatment was because he was married. The harassment claim also failed because marital status is not one of the protected characteristics for harassment in s.26(5) Equality Act 2010.

The holiday pay claim was dismissed because the claimant could not say when he had taken leave, how much had accrued, or provide a credible calculation, while the respondent's evidence was that he had been paid in full. The unlawful deductions claim also failed: the claimant had signed a 'Company Deductions from Pay' form, and the tribunal held that the loan repayments fell within that authority and were therefore lawful.

On the dismissal issue, the tribunal applied constructive dismissal principles under s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the case law it cited. It found that the complaints relied on by the claimant, whether taken separately or together, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The respondent's move to monthly pay had a proper purpose and the associated loan was offered to assist the claimant through the transition. The tribunal therefore found that he had not been dismissed and the unfair dismissal claim failed.