Claimant v Reply Ltd and Salt Recruitment Ltd — 2024

The tribunal dealt with the matter on the papers after preliminary hearings and made no findings of fact because no evidence was heard. The claimant had already withdrawn her unfair dismissal claim, and an earlier claim described in the judgment as other payments had also been withdrawn after she accepted those sums had been paid.

Against R1, the tribunal identified the only live complaint as an allegation that R1 gave bad references or gossiped about the claimant because she had used a trade union to secure payment of arrears and notice pay. It found that no recipient of any bad reference was identified in the ET1, no specific reference was set out, and the claimant said she had no direct evidence. The tribunal considered that the only potentially relevant statutory basis was section 146 TULRCA, but held that the claim had not been framed in those terms and, in any event, was speculative and had no reasonable prospect of success.

Against R2, the tribunal treated the complaint as one that R2 failed to put the claimant forward for work or blocked applications because of her trade union membership, with possible statutory bases under sections 137 and 138 TULRCA. It held that the claimant had not shown that R2 knew of her union membership at the material time, and that there was no evidence of a causal link. The contemporaneous material showed that after the end of her employment with R1 she was put forward for roles by R2 on multiple occasions, was invited to interview for one vacancy before it was filled, and that the alleged automatic rejection messages were error messages from the application system rather than evidence of deliberate blocking.

Applying rule 37(1)(a) and the strike-out authorities it cited, including Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland, Mechkarov v Citibank N.A., Malik v Birmingham City Council, Hemdan v Ismail, Chapman v Simon, Ahuja v Inghams and Stuart Harris Associates Ltd v Goburdhun, the tribunal struck out the claims against both respondents as having no reasonable prospect of success. It did not determine time limits because no evidence had been heard on that jurisdictional issue, and it vacated the preliminary listing.