Mr M Khan v Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd T/a Croma Vigilant: 4121920/2018
| Judgment Date | 09 March 2020,22 December 2020 |
| Citation | 4121920/2018 |
| Published date | 23 March 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
Case Number: 4121920/2018
1
RM
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Khan
Respondent: Vigilant Security (Scotland) Limited t/a Croma Vigilant
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 12, 13 and 14 February 2020
Before: Employment Judge Gardiner
Members: Mr G Bishop
Mrs A Berry
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr R Chaudhry, solicitor
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
1. The Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to his religion contrary to
Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 partially succeeds in relation to the
comment made by
Mr Thomson in his conversation with the Claimant on 15 June 2018.
2. The remainder of the Claimant’s complaints fail either because the
Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to consider them or on their merits, and are
accordingly dismissed.
3. A Remedy Hearing is to be held on 21 April 2020 to determine the remedy
that the Claimant should be awarded for the successful complaint.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant, Mr M Khan, has worked for the Respondent, Vigilant Security
(Scotland) Limited, since 2014 as a Security Officer. He was never employed by the
Respondent under a permanent employment contract, but worked on a temporary bank
Case Number: 4121920/2018
2
basis. His claim against the Respondent is a claim for direct religious discrimination and
harassment related to his religion, and a claim for breach of the Working Time Regulations
in relation to rest breaks.
2. The hearing was due to start on Wednesday 12 February 2020. Unfortunately,
there were only two panel members available to hear the case on that day. As a result,
this was discussed with the parties. It was agreed that the case would start on Thursday
13 February before a Full Panel. The parties agreed that the case should take no more
than two days. As a result, it could be completed within the original three-day listing.
3. The Tribunal had previously identified the issues for determination at a case
management Preliminary Hearing held on 4 October 2019. These were defined and
numbered in the record of the Preliminary Hearing as follows:
Time limits/ limitation issues
4.1 Were all of the Claimant’s discrimination complaints presented within the
time limits set out in sections 123(1)(a) & (b) of the Equality Act 2010
(“EQA”)? Dealing with this issue may involve consideration of subsidiary
issues including: whether there was an act and/or conduct extending over
a period, and/or a series of similar acts or failures; whether time should be
extended on a “just and equitable” basis; when the treatment complained
about occurred.
4.2 Were all of the Claimant’s claims for breaches of the right to daily and
weekly rest brought within the time limits set out in Section 30 of the
Working Time Regulations 1998? Dealing with this issue may involve
consideration of subsidiary issues including whether it was not reasonably
practicable for a complaint to be presented within the primary time limit.
4.3 Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early
conciliation, any complaint about something that happened before 7 June
2018 is potentially out of time, so that the tribunal may not have
jurisdiction to deal with it.
EQA, section 13: direct discrimination because of religion or belief
4.4 Has the respondent subjected the Claimant to the following treatment:
4.4.1 Mr Andrew Thomson asking the Claimant to work a night shift on
4 December 2017 whilst the Claimant was fasting;
4.4.2 Mr Andrew Thomson telling the Claimant on 4 December 2017
that “you Muslims are always a pain in the ass”, and laughing at
the Claimant;
To continue reading
Request your trial