Case 1406029/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Neckles v Oak Furniture Group Ltd t/a Oak Furniture — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406029/2020
- Decision date
- 30 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Neckles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Mr J Neckles alleged that Oak Furniture Group Ltd t/a Oak Furniture had issued or communicated a blacklist within the meaning of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 after refusing to permit him to accompany an employee, MZ, at a disciplinary hearing. The claimant relied on regulations 3 and 9 and said the communications to MZ and the union were part of a prohibited list. The tribunal recorded that Mr Neckles was an official of the PTSC Union and was neither an employee of, nor an applicant for employment by, the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Claim under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, especially regs 3 and 9. The tribunal struck it out because the claimant was not an employee of, or applicant for employment by, the respondent and therefore had no freestanding right of action within the regulations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- regulation 3 prohibited list definition
- regulation 9 detriment
- regulation 7 time limit
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.