Case 2409417/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jones v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409417/2023
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Jones, appearing in person, applied to amend his case to add a direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. He said he was Caucasian and had been treated less favourably as a probationer than Asian comparators when he was placed on a management plan from October 2022 until dismissal. Employment Judge K M Ross held that the amendment application was not well-founded and failed.
The Tribunal also dealt with whistleblowing detriment allegations said to have occurred in January and March 2023. It held those claims were presented outside the time limit and found it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. The Tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear them.
A further whistleblowing detriment allegation concerned the claimant's arrest on 2 May 2023 and a criminal investigation that concluded on 5 January 2024. The Tribunal held those steps were taken by Lancashire Constabulary in its role as a police force to detect crime and preserve the peace, rather than as the claimant's employer, so the claim could not be brought under sections 47B and 43B Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's unfairly (constructively) dismissed claim under section 103A and section 43KA Employment Rights Act 1996 was also held to be out of time, with the Tribunal finding it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Application to amend to include a direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The claimant said he was Caucasian and was less favourably treated as a probationer than Asian comparators when placed on a management plan from October 2022 until dismissal; the Tribunal found the amendment was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claims said to arise from alleged detriments in January and March 2023. The Tribunal held they were presented outside the time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim based on the claimant being arrested on 2 May 2023 and a criminal investigation commencing and ending on 5 January 2024. The Tribunal held those actions were taken by Lancashire Constabulary in its role as a police force to detect crime and preserve the peace, not as the claimant's employer, so it had no jurisdiction under sections 47B and 43B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claim that the claimant was unfairly (constructively) dismissed pursuant to section 103A and section 43KA Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal held it was presented outside the time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- sections 47B and 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43KA Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.