Case 1308491/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Zimmermann v University and College Union PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1308491/2022
- Decision date
- 24 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Zimmermann
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 21 September 2023, Employment Judge Camp struck out Mr Zimmermann's entire claim on the ground that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claims for detriment for making protected disclosures, breach of contract, and a number of other pleaded complaints described in the claim form, including competition or cartel-like conduct, professional negligence, bad faith, GDPR, and NMWR or living wage complaints.
For the complaints that the tribunal treated as potentially within its jurisdiction, it understood the claimant to be pursuing unjustifiable discipline under sections 64 to 66 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and direct and indirect race discrimination, race-related harassment, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal said no particular complaints could clearly be identified in the claim form, no application to amend had been made, and it could only proceed on its best understanding of the complaints the claimant wanted to pursue.
The tribunal held that the unjustifiable discipline complaints were misconceived because, on the facts alleged, the claimant had not been disciplined in accordance with section 64(2) at any relevant time. It said all but one of those complaints would also be out of time. It found the two discernible indirect discrimination complaints were misconceived because there was no reasonable prospect of showing particular disadvantage under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, and one was also out of time.
On the direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, and victimisation complaints, the tribunal said most were out of time and that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that the treatment complained of was because of race or a protected act. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to be provided if requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal treated the pleaded phrases about 'Reporting of Wrongdoing', 'Detrimental treatment due to reporting wrongdoing; Discriminatory treatment due to reporting wrongdoing – whistleblowing', and 'Violation of ERA' as a detriment for making protected disclosures complaint and said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claims described as 'violation of Competition Act/Cartel-like conduct', 'Professional Negligence/ Violation of Duty to Care', 'Acting in Bad Faith; Violation of UCU Policies and Regulations – UCU Mandate', 'Violation of UK GDPR; Violation of Data Protection Regulations', and 'Violation of NMWR/NMWI and UCU Regs related to NMWR/Living Wage'. | Struck out | — | — |
| Trade union | The tribunal identified the only potentially jurisdictionally cognisable TULRCA complaint as unjustifiable discipline under sections 64 to 66 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It held the complaints were misconceived because the claimant was not disciplined in accordance with section 64(2) at any relevant time, and that all but one were out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal treated the claimant's Equality Act complaints as including direct and indirect race discrimination. It said no particular complaints could clearly be identified in the claim form and no amendment application was made. It found the two discernible indirect discrimination complaints were misconceived because there was no reasonable prospect of showing particular disadvantage under section 19, and that the direct race discrimination complaints were mostly out of time and had no reasonable prospect of showing that the reason for the treatment was anything to do with race. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- sections 64 to 66 TULRCA 1992
- section 64(2) TULRCA 1992
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.