Claimant v Interopa Holidays Ltd — 2020

Employment Judge Russell, sitting alone on 9 September 2020, found that Ms Carrilllo's dismissal by Interopa Holidays Limited was principally for capability under s.98(2)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal held that she did not have the two years' continuous service needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so that claim failed and there was no need to assess fairness under s.98(4).

The claimant also pursued an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996 based on an alleged infringement of a statutory right. The tribunal held that she had not made it sufficiently clear what right she said had been infringed, that the email she relied on was really a dispute about punctuality and flexibility of working hours, and that it did not clearly allege a breach of Regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found there was no breach of Regulation 4 and that she was not required to work more than 48 hours against her will.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the respondent paid notice on dismissal. The remaining whistleblowing claim under Part IVA ERA 1996 also failed because the tribunal found that neither alleged protected disclosure led to a detriment within s.47B, the claimant did not reasonably believe she would be subjected to a detriment when making the disclosures within s.43G, and no evidence was advanced in respect of any public interest disclosure claim.

All claims were dismissed. The tribunal made no order as to costs, but directed that the £150 deposit paid by the claimant between 6 and 19 November 2019 be paid to the respondent after finding that she had acted unreasonably. It took into account that she was unrepresented, that English was not her mother tongue, and that she had limited financial means, and the respondent did not pursue a costs application.