Case 1309673/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Shaw v DPD Group UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309673/2020
- Decision date
- 5 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 13 October 2020 alleging automatically unfair dismissal under s.152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on the basis that he had been dismissed for taking part in trade union activities. The hearing concerned his application for interim relief, not the final determination of the underlying complaint.
The tribunal found that the complaint had been presented within seven days of the effective date of termination. However, no certificate signed by an authorised official of the independent trade union had been presented, as required by s.161(3) TULRCA. The claimant confirmed that he did not have such a certificate and had not asked the union to provide one.
Employment Judge Dean held that the statutory conditions for entertaining an interim relief application had not been satisfied. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, and the application for interim relief was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief for non-compliance with s.161(3) TULRCA. It did not determine the substantive automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s.152 TULRCA. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.152 TULRCA 1992
- s.161(2) TULRCA 1992
- s.161(3) TULRCA 1992
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.