In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Mrs Siobhan Bastin brought a claim against TBB Leisure Limited alleging automatic unfair dismissal because she had made protected public interest disclosures, including matters said to concern health and safety and data protection. She worked as a Front of House Supervisor at the Plymstock Inn from 1 January 2020 until her dismissal on one month’s notice, which took effect on 17 June 2021. The tribunal recorded the respondent’s case that she was dismissed for misconduct arising from a disagreement about an injured pigeon and for being rude to another member of staff, but those merits were not decided at this hearing.

The issue before Employment Judge Roper was timeliness and the earlier rejection of the first claim. The claimant started ACAS early conciliation on 26 May 2021, received the certificate on 6 July 2021, and presented the first tribunal claim on 29 July 2021. That claim was rejected because she had named Amanda Coulter rather than the employer, TBB Leisure Limited, even though the early conciliation certificate named the company correctly. The claimant sought reconsideration immediately after the rejection letter and did so within the 14-day period referred to in the tribunal’s standard guidance.

The tribunal held that the reconsideration application was made in time under Rule 71 and that it was in the interests of justice to grant reconsideration under Rule 70. The judge accepted that the naming error was a mistake and that the application was simply to replace the respondent’s name with the correct corporate employer name. The tribunal therefore amended the first claim to TBB Leisure Limited and held that the first claim was a valid claim and had been presented within time.

The later claim, reference 1400112/2022, was treated as an unnecessary duplication of the first claim and was dismissed. The tribunal made case management orders for the progression of the reinstated first claim. No remedy was awarded at this preliminary stage, and no final determination was made on the underlying whistleblowing dismissal complaint.