In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant presented his ET1 on 3 June 2022 claiming constructive unfair dismissal, religion or belief discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and breach of contract. At the open preliminary hearing on 21 October 2022, the tribunal considered the respondent's applications to strike out claims or seek a deposit order, together with limitation questions under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, s.23 ERA 1996 and s.123 EA 2010, and the strike-out and deposit provisions in Rules 37 and 39 of the ET Rules.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the claimant relied on a redundancy consultation in August 2020, later shift-pattern and manager-role issues, a refusal to move departments in January 2022, and his dealings with Occupational Health. The tribunal held that there were core disputed facts that could not be resolved on a strike-out hearing, that the claim had been clarified sufficiently to proceed, and that it would not be appropriate to strike it out or order a deposit. The claim was therefore left to be determined at a final hearing.

On religion or belief discrimination, the claimant relied on a 2016 incident in which a Facilities Manager allegedly told him he had hearing issues because he wore a turban. No further similar incidents were identified. The tribunal held that the claim was far outside the time limit, that there were no later connected acts, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also noted the claimant had not provided the witness statement ordered by Employment Judge Grewal and that the passage of time would prejudice the respondent because relevant managers had left the business.

On the wages and contract claims, the tribunal treated the wages complaint as an alleged unpaid 2% salary uplift. It held that the claim was not properly particularised, was brought too late, and in any event had no reasonable prospect of success on the material before it. The breach of contract claim concerned an alleged enhanced pension entitlement. The tribunal accepted that it was brought within the contract time limit after the termination of employment and ACAS Early Conciliation, but struck it out because the claimant could not identify the contractual term said to be breached, explain the breach, or quantify the loss claimed. No monetary award was made.