Case 4121920/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Khan v Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd t/a Croma Vigilant — 2020

Case reference: 4121920/2018
Decision date: 9 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gardiner Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Mr G Bishop, Mrs A Berry

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Khan

Respondent

Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd t/a Croma Vigilant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Khan worked for Vigilant Security (Scotland) Limited on a casual bank basis as a Security Officer. The tribunal found that he was keen to accept work and often sought as many shifts as possible, including back-to-back shifts, because he wanted to maximise his income for immigration-related reasons. The tribunal also found that on 4 December 2017 Mr Thomson made a remark about Muslims being a pain in the ass, but held that the complaint about that incident was out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Religion or belief discrimination	The tribunal held that the 4 December 2017 allegations were out of time, that the 2-3 June 2018 and 9-11 June 2018 shift-allocation allegations failed on the merits, and that the 15 June 2018 threat/comment allegation could not be pursued as direct discrimination because it had already been found to amount to harassment and therefore not to a detriment. The tribunal added that, if wrong on that point, the 15 June 2018 conduct would have been direct discrimination.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Harassment	Succeeded only in relation to Mr Thomson's conversation with the Claimant on 15 June 2018, when he asked whether all Muslims had to go to prayers and threatened consequences if the Claimant did not cover the shift. The tribunal held the conduct was unwanted, related to the Claimant's Muslim faith, and had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating and offensive environment. The 4 December 2017 allegations were held to be out of time.	Upheld	Religion or belief	—
Working time regulations	This claim concerned the alleged failure to provide the daily 11-hour rest period under Regulation 10. The tribunal held that the complaints relating to 2-3 June 2018 were out of time, and that the only in-time complaint, relating to 9-11 June 2018, failed because the Claimant chose to accept additional shifts and the Respondent was not preventing him from exercising the rest entitlement.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	This claim concerned the alleged failure to provide the weekly 24-hour rest period under Regulation 11. The tribunal found that the Claimant was provided with at least 24 hours' uninterrupted rest in each seven-day period during June 2018 and rejected the allegation that he was required to work 13 shifts without time off.

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.