Case 2601927/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Tyers (Lay Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601927/2022
- Decision date
- 14 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs L Tyers (Lay Representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 14 August 2023 before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaint of less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex, his complaint of detriment by reason of being an employee representative, and his redundancy payment claim were all dismissed upon withdrawal. Those claims were not determined on their merits.
The remaining complaint of unlawful deduction from wages, so far as it related to holiday pay, was dismissed because it had been brought outside the primary time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for that part of the claim to have been brought within time.
The claimant’s complaint of failure to provide written particulars of employment was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant could not satisfy section 38(2)(b) Employment Act 2022. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claimant’s complaint of less favourable treatment on the grounds of his sex was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Other | The claimant’s complaint of suffering detriment by reason of being an employee representative was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant’s claim for redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The part of the unlawful deduction from wages complaint relating to holiday pay was dismissed because it was brought outside the primary time limit and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought within that time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide written particulars of employment was dismissed because the claimant could not satisfy section 38(2)(b) Employment Act 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38(2)(b) Employment Act 2022
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.