Claimant v Amadeo Systems Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant did not assert a statutory right to a rest break as alleged. The WhatsApp message sent on 20 October did not indicate any assertion of statutory rights, and the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that the claimant simply wanted to go home without providing the reasons he later claimed. The claimant was dismissed for leaving the Telford exhibition without permission, not for asserting any statutory right.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not bring health and safety concerns to the respondents' attention by reasonable means as alleged. The documentary evidence contradicted the claimant's account. There were no circumstances of serious and imminent danger that the claimant reasonably believed existed. The dismissal was for leaving the exhibition without permission, not for health and safety reasons.

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Aydan did not make the racist comments alleged by the claimant (calling him 'dirty' or saying 'black guys are lazy'). There was no documentary evidence supporting these allegations, no contemporaneous complaints, and the respondent's witnesses denied the remarks. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence inconsistent and not credible. The dismissal was for leaving the exhibition without permission, with no inference that race played any part.

The claim failed on the facts. The tribunal concluded that Mr Aydan did not make the alleged racist comments ('Kash is always dirty', 'black guys are lazy') that formed the basis of the harassment claim. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence lacking in credibility and preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses who denied the remarks were made.

The respondent withheld the claimant's October salary. The tribunal found the respondent had no contractual right to make deductions based on hours logged on the blip app. The claimant was not an hourly paid employee and had not agreed to vary his contract. Any concerns about working hours should have been dealt with through the disciplinary process, not by withholding wages. The tribunal ordered payment of the full October salary of £2,916.66.

The claimant was entitled to 28 days holiday per annum. His pro-rata entitlement was 16.69 days. He had taken 10 days leave and six public holidays, and worked one weekend entitling him to time off in lieu. The tribunal calculated he was owed three days holiday pay at £134.62 per day, totalling £403.86.