Case 1404078/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Menon, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404078/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr H Menon, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Edwin Rodrigues' case, 1404078/2022, appears in Schedule 3 of a multiple-claimant judgment against Royal Mail Group Limited. Schedule 3 cases were described as claims for detrimental treatment under s.146 TULRCA 1992 and unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal recorded that, following the Supreme Court decision in Mercer, the respondent applied under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 to strike out all section 146 detriment claims. The CWU claimants did not oppose the substance of the application but sought a reasoned judgment because they were considering an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
Regional Employment Judge Pirani held that the section 146 detriment claims exceeded the Employment Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction and had no reasonable prospect of success, so they were struck out. For Schedule 3 cases, the unlawful deduction from wages claims were not decided and were left to be addressed by further directions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The case is listed in Schedule 3. The judgment states that the s.146 TULRCA 1992 detrimental treatment claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success following Mercer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim was not determined in this judgment; the judgment states it will be the subject of further directions. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.146 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 37(1)(a) ET Rules 2013
- section 3 Human Rights Act 1998
- Article 11 European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 35 European Convention on Human Rights
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.