Cases1808615/2023

Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingfailed

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of protected disclosure detriments under s48 ERA 1996. The tribunal found against the claimant after a full merits hearing with oral reasons provided.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of automatically unfair constructive dismissal on whistleblowing grounds under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant had not established the necessary elements for constructive dismissal on protected disclosure grounds.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010, including the allegation that his constructive dismissal was an act of direct discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could be inferred.

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010, including the allegation that his constructive dismissal was an act of victimisation. The tribunal found the claimant had not established that he was subjected to detriment because of protected acts.

Facts

Mr Arshad brought claims against Amazon UK Services Limited alleging protected disclosure detriments, automatically unfair constructive dismissal on whistleblowing grounds, direct race discrimination, and victimisation. The case was heard over six days before a full panel. The claimant represented himself throughout the proceedings while the respondent was represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims after a full merits hearing. Oral reasons were provided at the conclusion of the hearing. The tribunal found that the claimant had not established his claims of whistleblowing detriment, automatically unfair constructive dismissal, race discrimination, or victimisation.

Practical note

A self-represented claimant failed to establish the necessary factual and legal elements for whistleblowing, constructive dismissal, and discrimination claims against a major technology employer represented by counsel.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.48ERA 1996 s.103AEqA 2010 s.13EqA 2010 s.27

Case details

Case number
1808615/2023
Decision date
4 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
6
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No