In person For the v Mr T Goodwin Counsel — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant's ET1 was unclear and that, after an earlier order requiring clarification, the further particulars identified only two live issues: an age discrimination complaint and a complaint described as unpaid wages. The claimant had been employed as a security officer since 16 October 2017. Her contractual history showed changing hours, including an August 2019 contract stating that hours and pay would vary according to operational requirements and that the company had no obligation to provide any minimum number of hours.

On the age discrimination complaint, the tribunal treated the pleaded allegations as comments said to have been made between October 2017 and July 2018, a further comment in February 2020, and removal from a site in 2020. It held that these matters were very significantly outside the limitation period, that the claimant had given no explanation for the delay, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal also said that, even if time were extended, the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

On the wages complaint, the tribunal held that the real complaint was not that the claimant had been underpaid for work actually done, but that she had not been given the hours she expected and that her contractual terms had been changed without consent. It found that this was not an unlawful deductions claim because there had been no deduction from wages properly payable, and that the point was instead one of breach of contract over which the tribunal had no jurisdiction while the employment was ongoing. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not objected when the later contractual changes were implemented and that, even under the earlier contract, the respondent retained discretion to alter hours. Both claims were struck out and the August 2023 merits hearing was discharged.