Mr O Alimi v ENI International Resources Ltd: 1404742/2020 and others
| Judgment Date | 05 April 2022 |
| Date | 05 April 2022 |
| Citation | 1404742/2020 and others |
| Published date | 27 April 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Numbers: 1404742/2020, 1401328/2021 and 2207122/2021
1 of 53
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr O Alimi
Respondent: ENI International Resources Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
Heard at: Southampton and by Video (CVP) On: 21 to 29 March 2022
(Parties last attended on the 28 March 2022)
Before: Employment Judge Gray
And Members: Mr Knight and Mr Shah MBE
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr Singer (Counsel)
The Tribunal was assisted by Court provided interpreter Mrs Hogg until close of day 3
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
The complaint for breach of contract for 3,000 Euros is dismissed on
withdrawal.
The complaints of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, disability
discrimination (discrimination arising and failure in the duty to make
adjustments), victimisation and breach of contract (for 8,000 Euros), all fail
and are dismissed.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions of wage (claim number
2207122/2021) continues albeit subject to a stay until the 5 May 2022.
Case Numbers: 1404742/2020, 1401328/2021 and 2207122/2021
2 of 53
REASONS
1. BACKGROUND TO THIS CLAIM AND THIS HEARING
2. This matter is made up of three claims, two issued in the South West Region and
one in the London Central Region the latter o f which was then t ransferred to this
Region for determination.
3. There have been four case management preliminary hearings concerning this
matter as follows, before;
3.1 Employment Judge O’Rourke on the 12 May 2021;
3.2 Regional Employment Judge Pirani on the 28 September 2021;
3.3 Tribunal Judge Peer (acting as an Employment Judge) on the 25 January
2022; and
3.4 Employment Judge Rayner on the 22 February 2022.
Hearing format and timetable
4. At the case management hearing before Employment Judge Rayner
arrangements had been made for the claim to be heard in person and by video (a
hybrid), with the Respondent organising permission for three of its witnesses to
give evidence remotely from Italy.
5. At the commencement of this hearing it was agreed that the time at this final
hearing would be used as follows, determining liability only:
Day 1 Tribunal reading and preliminary matters
Day 2 & 3 Respondent’s evidence
Day 4 Claimant’s evidence
Day 5 Any overflow of evidence
At least 2 hours of Submissions
Deliberations
Day 6 Deliberations
Day 7 Delivery of judgment (liability questions first - disability, time
limits and liability)
Then Remedy, including causation for loss and injury, to be
case managed for determination if required.
Case Numbers: 1404742/2020, 1401328/2021 and 2207122/2021
3 of 53
6. Unfortunately, it was not possible to meet this timetable due to a variety of
reasons:
6.1 The parties requiring use of their own hearing bundles to present their case,
counter to the case managemen t orders of Employment Judge Rayner.
Also, producing hard copies and electronic copies that did not have a page
search system that corresponded (see further details below).
6.2 The hearing being in a h ybrid format with a requirement for Italian
interpretation for three of the Respondent’s witnesses who were all remote.
6.3 The Claimant wanting to ask a large number of open questions about the
Respondent’s evidence during cross examination.
7. Ultimately a slightly revised timetable was met as follows:
7.1 Evidence concluded at 16:45 on Friday (day five).
7.2 Submissions concluded at 13:45 on Monday (day six).
7.3 The difference between oral and written Judgment was explained to the
parties. The parties both indicated a requirement for written reasons so it
was agreed we would reserve Judgment and the parties were released on
day six.
Documents for the hearing
8. We were presented with:
8.1 The Claimant’s hard copy bundle broken into a number of coloured sections
with each section subject to separate numerical pagination. We were in the
main referred to the orange section of the Claimant’s bundle so page
references to the Claimant’s bundle as referred to below are to the orange
section.
8.2 An electronic version of the Claimant’s bundle consisting of 527 pages which
did not correspond to the hard copy (not being broken into separate
paginated sections and missing the last sections).
8.3 A company policies bundle from the Claimant both hard copy and electronic,
which appeared to be further copies of those provided in the Respondent’s
bundle.
8.4 The Respondent’s hard copy bundle consisting of six lever arch files with
numerical pagination from bundle 1 through to 6.
8.5 Electronic copies of the Respondent’s bundle which were broken into the six
files, but each file had its own electronic numerical pagination.
8.6 A witness statement of the Claimant.
To continue reading
Request your trial