Case 3203941/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Patel v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203941/2022
- Decision date
- 28 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Volkmer Members
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the Claimant's claim under s146(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the alleged acts listed at paragraphs 63.1.1, 63.1.2 and 63.1.3 of the Case Management Order dated 25 November 2022 were out of time, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints and dismissed them.
For the alleged act listed at paragraph 63.2, the Tribunal found that the claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's complaint of harassment related to sex was not well-founded and dismissed that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment records a claim under s146(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Some alleged acts were dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction; the remaining alleged act was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to sex was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s146(1)(b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.