Mr S Rice v North West Ambulance Service — 2017

The claimant, Mr S Rice, brought claims against North West Ambulance Service complaining of unlawful deduction from wages and detriment by reason of his status as a trade union member. This judgment dealt only with his application, made on 8 December 2017, to postpone the substantive hearing listed for 3 and 4 January 2018 because he said he would be out of the country on a pre-booked holiday. The tribunal reviewed the earlier case history, including an earlier postponement sought by the claimant for a preliminary hearing and a postponement previously granted at the respondent's request.

Employment Judge Holmes refused the application. The judge said the claimant had provided very little material about the holiday, including where he was going, whether he could return early, and what the consequences of cancellation would be. The claimant's counsel was unable to provide the evidence requested by the respondent, including evidence of the holiday, the date it was booked, and the claimed IT problem that had prevented earlier opening of the tribunal's notice of hearing. The tribunal considered that the claimant had to choose between attending the hearing and taking the holiday, and that the prejudice to the respondent was limited because its witness could attend a relisted hearing.

The tribunal also had regard to the wider impact of granting a further postponement. It said the hearing dates would not be available at short notice for another substantive case and that judicial time and other litigants' time would be wasted if the hearing were vacated. The judge therefore concluded that, in the absence of information showing why the claimant could not reasonably attend on 3 and 4 January 2018, the postponement application should be refused.

After the hearing, the tribunal received a document showing that the claimant had booked flights to Faro, Portugal, for 29 December 2017 to 6 January 2018 at a cost of £408. The judge said that, even if that document had been available at the hearing, it would not have changed the outcome, and he was not minded to reconsider the judgment on that basis. The underlying trade union-related and unlawful deduction from wages claims were not determined by this decision.