Wasiak v Axis Security Services Ltd (Discrimination - Race Discrimination - Religious Belief/ Political opinion Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal) [2019] NIFET 00076_18FET (23 July 2019)

Wasiak v Axis Security Services Ltd (Discrimination - Race Discrimination - Religious Belief/ Political opinion Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal) [2019] NIFET 00076_18FET (23 July 2019)

The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and thus unfairly dismissed, as the respondent failed to apply fair and objective selection criteria and did not adequately consult or consider alternatives. However, the redundancy was not discriminatory on grounds of race or religion, and other discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time and did not constitute a continuing act or state of affairs. It was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims.

Citation
[2019] NIFET 00076_18FET
Parties
Claimant: Tomasz Wasiak; Respondent: Axis Security Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeded in unfair dismissal; discrimination claims dismissed as out of time and not continuing.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Race Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Breach of Contract, Unauthorised Deduction of Wages
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Race Discrimination Religious Discrimination Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasz Wasiak

Claimant

Axis Security Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant unfairly dismissed contrary to Article 126 and Article 130 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996?
  2. 2 Was there a redundancy situation within the respondent’s business as per Article 174 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996?
  3. 3 Did the respondent subject the claimant to discrimination by way of less favourable treatment on the grounds of his race and nationality as defined in Article 3 of the Race Relations (NI) Order 1997?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and thus unfairly dismissed, as the respondent failed to apply fair and objective selection criteria and did not adequately consult or consider alternatives. However, the redundancy was not discriminatory on grounds of race or religion, and other discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time and did not constitute a continuing act or state of affairs. It was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeded in unfair dismissal; discrimination claims dismissed as out of time and not continuing.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant £1,213.86