Cases3302912/2024

Claimant v Serco Limited

13 October 2025Before Employment Judge BartlettBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out for want of jurisdiction. Tribunal found claimant's employment with respondent commenced on 17 March 2023 (before that he was employed by agency Berkely Scott). Even taking the latest possible end date, claimant did not have the required two years' service for unfair dismissal. Additionally, ET1 submitted 7 March 2024 clearly indicated employment had ended by that date.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagespartly succeeded

Claim for 39.81 hours of unpaid holiday pay allowed to proceed but subject to deposit order of £50 as tribunal found little prospect of success that claim fits within statutory wording for unlawful deduction from wages. Claim for any amount beyond 39.81 hours struck out as claimant failed to particularise calculation and amount appears to relate to period when not employed by respondent.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

Claims found to be in time as part of continuing act from 21 September 2023 relating to investigation and suspension. Tribunal declined to strike out or make deposit order, finding that while there are concerns about the allegations, discrimination claims should generally be decided after full hearing. Claimant alleges he was investigated due to race and white colleagues facing allegations were not investigated.

Facts

Claimant worked at asylum hotel operated by Serco, initially through agency Berkely Scott from October 2022, then directly for Serco from March 2023 as casual worker. In September 2023 allegations made against him by hotel residents. He was suspended on 21 September 2023 and investigation concluded 29 September 2023 finding no wrongdoing but that he was over-familiar with residents and should not work at that location again. He was offered alternative work which he refused. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages (holiday pay) and race discrimination.

Decision

Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction as claimant did not have two years' service (employment with Serco only commenced March 2023, not October 2022 when he worked through agency). Part of holiday pay claim struck out, remainder subject to £50 deposit order as little prospect of success. Race discrimination claims allowed to proceed as in time (continuing act from 21 September 2023) and should not be struck out at preliminary stage.

Practical note

Agency workers cannot count service with the agency as service with the end-user unless it is necessary to imply an employment relationship to give effect to the reality of the arrangement; race discrimination claims will rarely be struck out at preliminary stage even where concerns exist about the strength of allegations.

Legal authorities cited

Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Barton v Investec Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332Anyanwu v South Bank University [2001] IRLR 305 HLEzsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126 CAMadarassy v Nomura International plc 2007 ICR 867 CACox v Adecco UKEAT/0339/19Allan v Wandsworth LBC UKEAT/0049/13James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996Equality Act 2010 s.136

Case details

Case number
3302912/2024
Decision date
13 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
housing officer
Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep