Case 1300112/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Klicner v Guarding UK Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1300112/2021
Decision date: 4 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Faulkner
Venue: Midlands West
Panel members: Ms S Ray, Mr A Moosa

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Klicner

Respondent

Guarding UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 complaints. It found the Respondent did not at the relevant times employ a full-time worker comparable to the Claimant within regulation 2. It also found no detriment or less favourable treatment in relation to not placing the Claimant on furlough between 22 April and 31 December 2020, not offering at least 30 hours' work per week, offering shifts at short notice after the line manager changed in 2018, or offering work at sites outside Birmingham city centre. The Tribunal further found that the decision not to place him on furlough was justified on objective grounds.

The Tribunal also rejected the complaint based on regulation 7 of the PTW Regulations. It found the Claimant had not done an act within regulation 7(3)(a)(v) at a meeting with his line manager in December 2019. In any event, the Respondent's acts or failures to act did not contravene regulation 7(2) because they were not because the Respondent believed or suspected that the Claimant had done such an act.

On the section 45A ERA 1996 complaints, the Tribunal found no detriment in relation to annual leave requests on 11 and 12 June 2019 and the refusal to permit leave requests in March 2019, March 2020 and March 2021. It accepted that the Claimant's earlier tribunal complaint submitted on 9 May 2018 fell within section 45A(1)(e), but held the Respondent's conduct was not on the ground that he had brought those proceedings. The Tribunal also held the section 45A complaints were out of time because it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time.

The section 47B ERA 1996 whistleblowing complaints were also dismissed. The Tribunal found the Claimant did not make a protected disclosure by bringing the 9 May 2018 tribunal complaint. It rejected the allegations that the Respondent created unequal opportunities from June 2018 by requiring casual assignment-by-assignment work or subjected him to a hostile environment in discussions with his line manager in June, November and December 2019. It found no detriment and no causal connection to any protected disclosure, and it held the 2019 whistleblowing complaints were out of time because it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time.

The Claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint under sections 101A and 103A ERA 1996 also failed. The Tribunal found the Respondent did not dismiss the Claimant for a reason set out in those provisions. The judgment ends by stating that none of the Claimant's complaints were well-founded and that they were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Part-time worker regulations	Complaint that the Respondent failed to place the Claimant on furlough between 22 April and 31 December 2020 and failed to offer at least 30 hours' work per week in that period. The Tribunal held there was no comparable full-time worker within regulation 2, no detriment or less favourable treatment, and in any event the furlough decision was justified on objective grounds.	Dismissed	—	—
Part-time worker regulations	Complaint that, after the line manager changed in 2018, the Respondent offered shifts at short notice, offered work at sites outside Birmingham city centre without request, and did not place the Claimant on furlough. The Tribunal found no detriment, held the Claimant had not done an act within regulation 7(3)(a)(v) at the December 2019 meeting, and found the Respondent's acts or omissions were not because it believed or suspected he had done so.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	Complaint under section 45A ERA 1996 arising from annual leave issues on 11 and 12 June 2019 and in March 2019, March 2020 and March 2021. The Tribunal found no detriment. It accepted that the Claimant's earlier tribunal complaint of 9 May 2018 fell within section 45A(1)(e), but held the Respondent's acts were not on the ground that he had brought those proceedings and that the complaints were out of time because it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Complaint under section 47B ERA 1996 based on the Claimant's earlier tribunal complaint of 9 May 2018 and later alleged detriments, including creation of unequal opportunities from June 2018 through a casual assignment-by-assignment arrangement and a hostile environment in June, November and December 2019. The Tribunal found the 9 May 2018 tribunal complaint was not a protected disclosure, found no detriment or causation, and also held the 2019 complaints were out of time because it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time.

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.