Claimant v Group Employment Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The tribunal extended the time limit on just and equitable grounds, finding that the claimant had delayed due to fear of losing his job and supporting his family, and acted promptly once a subsequent discriminatory act occurred. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.
This claim concerning non-payment of bonus in December 2024 was the subject of a strike-out application by the respondent. The tribunal refused the strike-out application and refused the alternative deposit order application, finding there was a core of disputed facts (including whether others with similar training issues received bonuses, and whether a previous comment about wearing a turban was made) and the claim could not be said to have no or little reasonable prospect of success. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Sikh security worker employed by the respondent at BP premises in Peterhead since April 2023, alleged his manager told him in a phone call (around May 2024) that he could not wear a turban on-site. He did not complain at the time, fearing dismissal as he has a family to support. In December 2024, he was the only member of his six-person team not to receive a bonus. He then raised a grievance about both matters, which was not upheld. He brought tribunal claims alleging indirect and direct religion discrimination.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and strike-out applications. The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds for the indirect discrimination claim (207 days late), accepting the claimant's fear of job loss as explanation for delay. The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out or impose a deposit order on the direct discrimination claim about the bonus, finding there were disputed facts about training completion, bonus criteria application, and the alleged comment about wearing a turban. Both claims will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Tribunals will be cautious about striking out discrimination claims where there are disputed facts, particularly regarding the mental processes and motivations of alleged discriminators, even where the respondent points to documentary evidence; fear of job loss can justify extending time limits on just and equitable grounds where a claimant acts promptly after a subsequent discriminatory act.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000543/2025
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- security role
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No