Commsec Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, a former Security Officer employed from April 2022 to March 2024, brought claims for race discrimination, constructive dismissal, protected disclosure/whistleblowing, unpaid holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions. The respondent applied to strike out the claims as having no reasonable prospect of success or, alternatively, to impose deposit orders. Employment Judge Bunting rejected the strike-out application, finding that the central facts were disputed and that special care must be taken in discrimination and whistleblowing cases.

The tribunal found that there were crucial disputes of fact central to the claims (particularly regarding the race discrimination complaint involving a telephone call with Donna Karim and the health and safety concerns), and applying the guidance from Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, it would only be in an exceptional case that a strike-out would be appropriate when central facts are in dispute. Special care must be taken in discrimination and whistleblowing cases, and striking out is rarely appropriate in such cases.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether race discrimination claim has reasonable prospect of success
• •Whether whistleblowing/protected disclosure claim has reasonable prospect of success
• •Whether constructive dismissal claim based on unsafe work environment (mould, grass) is viable
• •Whether holiday pay entitlement claim is well-founded
• •Whether unauthorised deduction of wages claim is time-barred
• •Appropriate test for striking out claims in discrimination and whistleblowing cases

1 of 14 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr B Aro Respondent: Commsec Security Ltd JUDGMENT WITH REASONS Heard at: Manchester (via CVP) On: 15 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge Bunting Appearances For the claimant: In Person For the respondent: Mr R Lyons, consultant JUDGMENT 1. The respondent’s application to strike out the claim fails. REASONS Introduction 2. This case was listed on 15 December 2025 for a 3 hour open preliminary hearing to decide the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim or, in the alternative, to make a deposit order. 3. The case is listed for a final hearing listed for three days on 31 March 2026. 4. The claimant was employed as a Security Officer from 29 April 2022 until 18 March 2024 when his resignation took effect. 2 of 14 5. He brings a number of claims: • Race discrimination • Automatic unfair constructive dismissal • Protected disclosure • Unpaid holiday pay • Unauthorised deduction of wages 6. The claimant states was working in an unsafe work environment in that the office was beset by mould, with grass growing inside. 7. Although he raised this with the respondent on a number of occasions between October and December 2023, nothing was done. As a result he states that this amounted to a breach of the implied term to provide a safe work environment which entitled him to resign, which he did on 18 March 2024. 8. This is also put in the List of issues as being also a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, although it appears that this is the same point. 9. The claimant also states that the principal reason for the dismissal was that he made a protected disclosure in relation to the health and safety issues. These were to Mr Scott (his Line Manager) in September/October 2023, and to Marie Dunn by letter of 01 December 2023. 10. The claimant sta…