Case 2305683/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305683/2019
- Decision date
- 25 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc as an LGV driver from 16 September to 16 October 2019 and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal held that ordinary unfair dismissal was not open to him because he had only one month of service and therefore lacked the required qualifying service.
At the hearing the claimant said he was also claiming dismissal for making a protected disclosure. Although he had ticked the protected disclosures box on the claim form, the tribunal and respondent had not read the particulars as alleging whistleblowing. The tribunal treated this as an application to amend by adding a complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A.
The tribunal found that the pleaded dispute concerned interpretation and application of EU Regulation 561/2006 about driving time and rest breaks. It held that the pleaded case did not allege that the claimant gave his employer information reasonably believed to show breach of the Regulations in the public interest, or that this was why he was dismissed. The amendment application was dismissed, and the wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed because the claimant said he had suffered no financial loss under the contract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the application to amend the claim to add automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of making a protected disclosure; the pleaded case did not allege that the claimant gave information reasonably believed to show breach of the Regulations in the public interest or that this was why he was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant said he had suffered no financial loss under the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear ordinary unfair dismissal because the claimant had insufficient qualifying service, having been employed for one month. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.