Mr A Tapera v Amazon UK Services Ltd and ICTS (UK) Ltd: 3335084/2018

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3335084/2018

Between

Mr A TaperaClaimant

(1) Amazon UK Services Limited; (2) ICTS (UK) Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARINGRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Postle

In person for claimant

Date 27 January 2020

[1]On the application of the second Respondent and having considered any representations made by the Claimant, Employment Judge Postle orders that unless by 28 February 2020 the Claimant provides the following further particulars of his claim against the second Respondent, the claims against the second Respondent will be struck out without further notice of hearing. The particulars required are as follows: Allegation 1: 6 July 2018 – Indirect Race Discrimination1.1 The Claimant alleges that his holiday was cancelled two days before his last working day, without his permission:

a. therefore, what is the provision criterion or practice the Claimant alleges that ICTS (UK) Limited applied or would apply to a person who are not black African? and

b. how did the provision criterion or practice alleged put black Africans at a particular disadvantage, or person who are not black African? Allegation 2: from 8 July 2018 – Direct Discrimination

1.2 The Claimant alleges that Alex Ciobanu did not carry out his duties in the way the second Respondent used to expect of him. The Claimant alleges that Alex did not do as many jobs as he did. The Claimant relies upon Imran Iqbal as the alleged perpetrator: a. what was the less favourable treatment relied upon by the Claimant? b. how is the less favourable treatment caused by Imran Iqbal connected to the Claimant’s race? Allegation 3: June 2018 to 8 July 2018 – Indirect Race Discrimination

1.3 The Claimant alleges that Imran Iqbal asked Harvey Cirdland, Supervisor, to not support the Claimant with less prevention duties: Case Number: 3335084/2018 3 of 4 a. what is the provision, criterion or practice the Claimant alleges that ICTS (UK) Limited applied or would apply to people who are not black African? and b. how did the provision, criterion or practice alleged put black Africans at a particular disadvantage to persons who are not black African? Allegation 4: June 2018 – Indirect Race Discrimination

1.4 The Claimant alleges that when Simone was on holiday, Paul and Imran of ICTS (UK) Limited discussed with Harvey that she should control the Claimant and give him orders: a. what is the provision, criterion or practice the Claimant alleges that ICTS (UK) Limited applied or would apply to persons who are not black African? and b. how did the provision, criterion or practice alleged put black Africans at a particular disadvantage to persons who are not black African?

[2]The Claimant must provide this information on or before 28 February 2020, sending to the second Respondent with a copy to the Tribunal and unless the Claimant complies with this Order fully by the due date, the complaints of race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 will stand dismissed without further Order, notice or preliminary hearing.

[3]The Judge’s reasons for making this Order are the Claimant’s continued failure to advance his case clearly and precisely against the second Respondent so that the second Respondents can properly respond to it.

[4]A telephone conference has been listed for 20 March 2020 at 10:00am to consider further progress of the claim, if the Claimant complies fully with the Unless Order above.

[5]Other Matters5.1 The above orders were made and explained to the parties at the preliminary hearing. All orders must be complied with even if this written record of the hearing is received after the date for compliance has passed.

5.2 Public access to employment Tribunal decisions All judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Case Number: 3335084/2018 4 of 4

5.3 Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a Tribunal Order for the disclosure of documents commits a criminal offence and is liable, if convicted in the Magistrates Court, to a fine of up to £1,000.00.

5.4 Under rule 6, if any of the above orders is not complied with, the Tribunal may take such action as it considers just which may include:

(a) waiving or varying the requirement;

(b) striking out the claim or the response, in whole or in part, in accordance with rule 37;

(d) awarding costs in accordance with rule 74-84. __________________________ Employment Judge Postle Date: 27 January 20 Sent to the parties on: ……………………………. For the Tribunal: …………………………..