In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant worked for the respondent as a Community Assessor from 3 August 2019 to 10 December 2019. She said she left after an incident on 19 November 2019 and after raising health and safety and security concerns, and she later sought to recast the case as whistleblowing. At the preliminary hearing, however, she had stated that the case was not a whistleblowing claim and was purely about her dismissal.

Applying the Selkent principles, the tribunal refused the amendment to add a whistleblowing claim. It held that the proposed amendment was not just a relabelling or clarification, but a substantial change to both the factual and legal basis of the case. The tribunal also considered the application out of time and said that, even if amended, the whistleblowing claim would likely fail on time limits. It further considered the merits in the balance of hardship exercise and found the claim had doubtful prospects, noting that the later assertion that the respondent failed to act because of protected disclosures contradicted the claimant's earlier position.

With the amendment refused, the tribunal dismissed the remaining ordinary unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The separate section 100 health and safety automatic unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn by the claimant and was therefore dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made.