in person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant's ET1 said the case concerned an accident at work on 11 February 2021, when he fell from the respondent's refuse collection truck and injured his back. The respondent applied to strike out the claim on the basis that it was, in substance, a personal injury claim outside the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. The claimant said his complaint was about health and safety at work and also described later treatment by the respondent, including an investigation, sick pay, a disciplinary meeting, and his dismissal on 17 April 2023.

Employment Judge Klimov held that, on a fair reading of the ET1 as a whole, the form did disclose a complaint under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996. The judge treated the passage describing the fall from the truck, the injury, and the immediate report to the foreman and manager as containing the elements of a health and safety detriment complaint: the claimant had brought to the employer's attention circumstances connected with work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, and he alleged detriment in the form of misconduct allegations and an extensive investigation.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that there was no health and safety complaint on the face of the ET1. It also noted that the claimant did not need, at that stage, to prove the separate elements that there was no health and safety representative or safety committee, or that it was not reasonably practicable to raise the matter by those means. The application to strike out the claim therefore failed and was dismissed. The judge made no factual findings about the accident itself, negligence, breach of health and safety rules, liability, or whether the claimant in fact suffered injury as alleged.