Mr. M. Bolomoni Godly v ASEL Temporary Security Solutions Limited. — 2026

The tribunal found that Mr M. Bolomoni Godly remained employed by ASEL Temporary Security Solutions Limited on the zero-hours contract he signed in July 2019. It rejected his contention that later letters prepared in connection with immigration matters varied that contract to guarantee 24 hours per week. The tribunal found no offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration or certainty sufficient to establish such a variation, and considered the claimant's working and pay records consistent with a zero-hours arrangement.

The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed because the claimant had no contractual entitlement to guaranteed hours or wages after August 2024. The holiday-pay complaint was also dismissed. The contract did not permit the claimed carry-over in the circumstances relied upon, and the claimant did not identify the dates of the alleged 16 days of unpaid leave or provide cogent evidence establishing non-payment.

The direct race discrimination complaint concerned shifts removed from the claimant between 25 August and 2 September 2024 and allocated to a white English security guard. The tribunal accepted that the shifts were reallocated because the other guard was a permanent core officer whose SIA licence had been renewed. The control team making the allocation knew officers by identification number and did not know their names or ethnic origins. The tribunal also found a material difference between the claimant, who was a relief officer on a zero-hours contract, and the permanent core officer relied upon as comparator. It concluded that the claimant had not established facts from which race discrimination could be inferred and dismissed both direct race discrimination and the alternative harassment complaint based on the same facts.

The victimisation complaint alleged that the respondent failed to consult the claimant about the closure of the NSK site because of protected acts. Issuing the tribunal proceedings was conceded to be a protected act, but the alleged failure to consult predated the respondent's knowledge of those proceedings. The tribunal found that the claimant's texts and the version of his 24 August 2024 email received by the respondent did not allege race discrimination or another Equality Act contravention and were not protected acts. It did not accept that the second version of the email referring to English and Asian officers had been sent to or received by the respondent.

The tribunal further found that failure to consult the claimant was not a detriment in the particular circumstances because he was a zero-hours worker who faced no redundancy risk, had no entitlement to redundancy pay or minimum hours, and could be assigned to another site. In the alternative, it found that the lack of consultation was not because of any protected act: Mr Alan Cook acted on HR advice that consultation was unnecessary for a zero-hours worker, and neither the control team nor the relevant HR address had received information capable of influencing that decision. All complaints were dismissed, so no remedy was awarded and section 207A TULRCA 1992 was not engaged.