Claimant v ICTS (UK) Limited

The claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. He failed to establish any applicable exception under section 108(3). The claim was dismissed for lack of qualifying service.

The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was because of the claimant's race (black African). The cited comparator, Mr Cox, was not in the same material circumstances. The respondent established a non-discriminatory explanation: a genuine belief that the claimant had falsified sickness absence to extend holiday, which fundamentally undermined trust and confidence. The tribunal found the treatment was not unreasonable and the explanation had nothing to do with race.

The tribunal found the claimant had been dishonest in seeking extra time to extend his holiday by falsifying sickness absence and by refusing to provide flight tickets he had agreed to produce. This constituted a fundamental breach of contract entitling the respondent to dismiss summarily. The delay before dismissal did not constitute affirmation of the contract as investigation was ongoing.

The claimant failed to particularise this claim at any time. He did not specify when deductions were made, the amounts, or the contractual basis entitling him to wages. Despite being given opportunity to provide details or amend, he failed to do so. The claim was dismissed as unparticularised.

The claimant failed to particularise this claim or provide any calculation. The respondent produced wage slips demonstrating payment of holiday pay. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that there was no failure to pay holiday pay at any time. The claim was dismissed.