Natalia Pytel v Harrods Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024

At a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out application, the tribunal considered the claimant's Claim Form at its highest. Natalia Pytel appeared in person with a Polish interpreter. The tribunal recorded that she worked for Luxe Associates Ltd from 17 February 2023 and was assigned to its Harrods concession, but Harrods was not her employer.

The tribunal summarised an incident on 13 June 2023 involving Evie, a sales assistant from another concession, followed by complaints, counter-allegations, a meeting on 11 July 2023, and Luxe's request on 24 July 2023 that the claimant's staff card be cancelled. Luxe terminated her employment that day. The tribunal found that she had 5 months and 1 week of service with Luxe.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant accepted that Harrods was not her employer and she did not have two years' continuous employment, so she had no reasonable prospect of success under s94(1) and s108(1) ERA 1996. The public interest disclosure claims were also struck out because the Claim Form and evidence did not identify a qualifying disclosure, what information was disclosed, how it met s43B ERA 1996, to whom it was disclosed, or why it was protected.

The harassment point failed because the tribunal found the word 'harassment' had been used in a colloquial sense to describe bullying, not as a claim linked to any protected characteristic under s26 EqA 2010. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims.