Case 2601347/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Piotr Gruszka v 1) Linear Recruitment Limited 2) Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601347/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rachel Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Piotr Gruszka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of an open preliminary hearing. The Employment Judge recorded that no findings of fact were made and that the view on the merits was provisional only, based on submissions and limited documents. The claimant, Mr Piotr Gruszka, had worked for Linear Recruitment Limited as an agency worker supplying Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited from 16 December 2019 until 21 May 2021.
The claimant had pleaded holiday pay / unlawful deduction of wages and Working Time Regulations claims, together with a series of section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 detriment complaints said to arise from protected disclosures made on 21 December 2020, 6 May 2021, 14 May 2021, and additional emails of 22 December 2020. The Tribunal held that the claims against the Second Respondent had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out, because the claimant did not identify evidence that R2 knew of the disclosures or instructed R1 to terminate the engagement.
As to the First Respondent, the Tribunal struck out the complaints that R1 prevented annual leave before 21 December 2020 and provided incorrect annual leave information before that date, because those alleged detriments pre-dated the first protected disclosure. The claimant's holiday pay / unlawful deduction claim and the Working Time Regulations claim against R1 were not struck out, because the documents did not establish whether the claimed days had in fact been paid or what the correct entitlement was.
The remaining whistleblowing complaints against R1 were allowed to proceed, including the allegations about annual leave information after 21 December 2020, preventing annual leave after that date, suspension without pay, and termination of the engagement on 21 May 2021. The allegation that R1 fabricated or used false evidence to justify termination was not struck out, but the Tribunal considered it had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £50 deposit order, with further particulars to be provided. The Tribunal therefore left the main R1 whistleblowing case, and the holiday pay and Working Time Regulations claims, to be determined at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay / unlawful deduction of wages complaint against the Second Respondent was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B claims against the Second Respondent alleging fabrication and/or use of false evidence to justify termination, and that it asked or instructed R1 to terminate the claimant's engagement, were struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay / unlawful deduction of wages claim against the First Respondent was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim against the First Respondent for breach of regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | R1 allegation that it prevented the claimant from taking annual leave before 21 December 2020 was struck out because the alleged detriment pre-dated the first protected disclosure. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48(2) ERA 1996
- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon
- Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- London Borough of Harrow v Knight
- International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Hemdan v Ishmail and Al-Megraby
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.