Case 2403061/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Royle v Openreach Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403061/2023
- Decision date
- 14 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Royle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief after his employment ended on 22 February 2023. He acknowledged that he did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal and, when asked for clarification, said he alleged automatic unfair dismissal because he had been conducting trade union activities.
The tribunal referred the claimant to section 152(1)(b) of TULRA 1992, which he confirmed was the basis of the automatic unfair dismissal allegation. The tribunal accepted that the claim had been lodged within seven days of the effective date of termination.
The application for interim relief was dismissed because section 161(3) of TULRA 1992 required a certificate from a trade union official to be filed within the same seven-day period. No such certificate was on the tribunal file, and the claimant confirmed he had been unaware of the requirement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief. The claimant identified the underlying automatic unfair dismissal basis as taking part in or conducting trade union activities under section 152(1)(b) of TULRA 1992, but the dismissal was of the interim relief application for failure to meet the certificate requirement under section 161(3), not a determination of the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 152(1)(b) TULRA 1992
- section 161(3) TULRA 1992
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.