Case 8000331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
J Lindsay T Lithgow Wojciech Debek v Allander Security Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000331/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Members
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- J Lindsay, T Lithgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Lindsay T Lithgow Wojciech Debek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is Polish, worked for Allander Security Ltd as a Security Operative at the Forbo factory in Kirkcaldy from 18 March 2023. His final hearing concerned complaints of direct race discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal also recorded that an originally pleaded holiday pay complaint had been withdrawn and dismissed after payment.
On the race claim, the claimant said he had been allocated mainly night shifts while Scottish colleagues Kevin McBay and Owen Ritchie were allocated mainly day shifts. The tribunal accepted evidence that shifts were allocated by central control according to client need and hours, that the claimant was hired to replace Hugh Hunter, who had been predominantly on night shift at the site, and that the comparator employees had been in materially different situations because they had long-standing shift patterns established before his appointment. It also found that another Polish employee worked day shifts elsewhere, that other Scottish staff worked predominantly night shifts, and that the claimant did not frequently raise race-based concerns during his employment. The tribunal therefore dismissed the complaint of direct race discrimination.
On the wages claim, the claimant said he had carried out 3 hours of training on 24 March 2023 and had not been paid properly for it. The tribunal preferred the respondent’s evidence and documentary records, finding that he did not attend training on 24 March and instead attended fire safety training on 27 March 2023, which had been rostered for 6 hours but finished after about 3 hours. It found he was paid for the 6 hours scheduled, so the amount paid was not less than the amount properly payable. The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was alleged. The tribunal found the claimant and the Scottish comparators were not in the same circumstances, accepted that he had been hired to replace a Scottish colleague who had been predominantly on night shift, and held that the shift pattern was explained by client need and staffing history rather than race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged he had done 3 hours of training on 24 March 2023 and been underpaid. The tribunal found he did not attend training on 24 March, accepted that the training took place on 27 March instead, and found he was paid for the 6 hours that had been rostered. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Section 23 Equality Act 2010
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Barton v Investec
- Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Griffiths Henry
- Section 13 ERA 1996
- Section 13(3) ERA 1996
- Section 23 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.