Claimant v Sodexo Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the decision to downgrade the claimant. The claimant was not fit for work as a PCO in October 2023, and the respondent's poor handling of the situation was due to inadequate thought processes that would have been applied to any employee regardless of race. The named comparators were all in materially different circumstances, and a hypothetical white comparator would have been treated the same way.
The tribunal found the respondent unilaterally varied the claimant's contract without following proper procedures or obtaining consent. The claimant was paid at the lower OSO rate instead of his contractual PCO rate from October 2023 to February 2025. The deduction was not authorized by statute, contract, or prior written consent. The claimant maintained his objection throughout via grievance and tribunal proceedings. The respondent's attempt to argue a Hogg v Dover College dismissal failed as it was not pleaded and was inconsistent with established law.
Facts
The claimant, a Prison Custody Officer (PCO), was injured at work in March 2021 and underwent ACL knee surgery in July 2022. After 11 months' absence, in September 2023 the respondent decided to move him to the lower-paid Operational Support Officer (OSO) role without his consent. The claimant was paid at the lower OSO rate from October 2023. He raised a grievance objecting to the change but continued working under protest. He brought claims for race discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. The claimant resumed PCO duties in February 2025.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claim, finding no evidence that race played any part in the decision and that the claimant's named comparators were in materially different circumstances. The wages claim succeeded because the respondent had unilaterally varied the contract without authorization, and the claimant had maintained his objection throughout. The tribunal awarded £6,549.83 gross in unpaid wages covering October 2023 to February 2025.
Practical note
Employers cannot rely on Hogg v Dover College dismissal as a defence to unlawful deduction claims—that principle is available to employees choosing to 'stand and sue' after unilateral contract variations, not to employers seeking to justify paying reduced wages without proper consent or contractual authority.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401136/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Sodexo Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Prison Custody Officer (PCO)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No