Security patrol officer loses race discrimination claim but wins holiday pay for sick leave
A tribunal dismissed claims that a security officer was left out of furlough and overlooked because of his race, but awarded £984 for unpaid holiday accrued during sickness.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- Mr Howell worked as a Security Patrol Officer on London's South Bank.
- He was removed from the contract after an Extinction Rebellion protest in April 2021.
- He was off sick from April 2021 until his dismissal in August 2022.
- The respondent failed to pay for 13 days of accrued holiday leave from the 2020/21 holiday year.
- The respondent paid for 19 days of holiday from the 2021/22 year during the hearing.
- The race discrimination claim was dismissed as the decision not to furlough Mr Howell was not because of his race.
Timeline
-
TUPE transfer to Pace
Mr Howell's employment transferred from Corps Security to Pace Security Services Ltd under TUPE regulations.
-
First lockdown begins
Reduced need for security patrols; hours were cut for those on zero-hours contracts.
-
Furlough decisions made
Two white colleagues (Tony and Raf) were furloughed; Mr Howell was not.
-
Extinction Rebellion protest
Mr Howell and colleague Jon Baxter observed a protest; client SBEG was unhappy and insisted they be removed from the contract.
-
Mr Howell goes off sick
Mr Howell reported sick after the protest; he remained off sick for nearly a year.
-
Grievance raised
Mr Howell raised a grievance about his removal from the contract.
-
Claim form presented
Mr Howell brought claims of race discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay.
-
Dismissal
Mr Howell was dismissed for unauthorised absence after his sick notes ended.
-
Final hearing begins
Three-day hearing at Croydon Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment given
Race discrimination and unlawful deduction claims dismissed; holiday pay claim upheld for 13 days (£984.10).
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race by not furloughing him and by not contacting him during sick leave, and whether the claimant was entitled to holiday pay for leave accrued while off sick.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claim, finding that the decision not to furlough the claimant was based on operational needs, not race, and that the lack of contact while off sick did not amount to discrimination. The claim for unlawful deduction of wages was also dismissed.
The holiday pay claim was upheld. The claimant was awarded:
- £984.10 for 13 days' unpaid holiday from the 2020/21 holiday year
- Payment for 19 days from the 2021/22 year was made during the hearing, so no further award for that period.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a race discrimination claim, you need evidence that race was a factor in the treatment you received — a feeling of being overlooked is not enough.
- Holiday pay continues to accrue during long-term sick leave; employers must pay for unused leave when employment ends.
- If you bring multiple claims, ensure each is properly pleaded and supported by evidence — the tribunal will strike out claims that lack substance.
- Keep records of your holiday entitlement and any requests for payment; this can help prove unlawful deduction of wages.
- A zero-hours contract does not mean you lose statutory rights like holiday pay — you are still entitled to paid annual leave.
A case about furlough, race and holiday pay
This case shows how employment tribunals separate genuine grievances from claims that lack evidence. The claimant, a security patrol officer on London's South Bank, believed he was treated unfairly because of his race when he was not furloughed during the pandemic and was not contacted while off sick. But the tribunal found no link to race — the decision not to furlough him was based on the reduced need for patrols, and the lack of contact was due to poor management, not discrimination.
What the employer could have done differently
Pace Security Services could have avoided the holiday pay claim entirely by paying the claimant for his accrued leave when he was dismissed. The fact that they paid for 19 days only during the hearing suggests a lack of proper process. Employers should ensure they have a system for tracking holiday entitlement, especially for employees on long-term sick leave, and settle any outstanding pay promptly.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that discrimination claims require direct or circumstantial evidence of a protected characteristic playing a role. A feeling of being overlooked is not enough. On the other hand, holiday pay claims are often straightforward: if you have accrued but untaken leave when your employment ends, you are entitled to be paid for it, even if you were off sick. The award of £984.10, though modest, reinforces that employers cannot ignore this obligation.
Similar cases
TUPE transfer meant employer was not liable for constructive dismissal
Two employees who claimed constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal against Britannia Driving School Ltd had their claims dismissed after the tribunal found a TUPE transfer had already moved their employment to another company.
Cleaner awarded £224 holiday pay after TUPE transfer but constructive dismissal claim fails
A cleaner and supervisor who resigned after a TUPE transfer was awarded £224 for unpaid holiday pay, but her claims for constructive dismissal and race discrimination were dismissed.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.
Former employee's race discrimination claim dismissed but holiday pay awarded
A former employee's claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination failed due to time limits, but the tribunal awarded £243.54 for unpaid holiday pay.