Case 8000082/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Member J McElwee Tribunal Member S Singh Mr F Lubamba v A Jobs Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000082/2024
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J McElwee, S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J McElwee Tribunal Member S Singh Mr F Lubamba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was an agency worker supplied to A1 Jobs Ltd for work at the second respondent's warehouse. The tribunal accepted that he was asked to carry out outdoor cardboard disposal on 11 and 14 December 2023, and did so on 15 December 2023, but it found that this was because he arrived late on 11 and 14 December and other tasks had already been allocated, and because cardboard disposal was the only task he had been doing by 15 December. It rejected the case that being asked to work outside was less favourable treatment because of race, noting that all workers could be required to work outside and that many workers did so in different outside tasks during the busy December period.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the email of 19 December 2023 contained one qualifying and protected disclosure about managers calling workers 'un-skills', but it rejected the separate complaint about being cold after working outside as a qualifying disclosure. The detriment complaint failed because the decision not to offer further work had already been made before the protected disclosure was sent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated this as an automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s103A ERA. It held that the respondent had already decided not to offer further work before the protected disclosure was made, so the disclosure could not have been the sole or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 13 EqA 2010
- section 26 EqA 2010
- section 27 EqA 2010
- section 136 EqA 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
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.