In person. Assisted by an Interpreter: Mrs F Moussa (Translation - Somali). For the v Mr L Ashwood (Solicitor). — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on 20 September 2021 before Employment Judge KJ Palmer sitting alone. The tribunal consolidated two claims arising from a short period of employment between 26 November and 9 December 2020. The issues were whether either claim should be struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and/or whether a deposit order should be made under rule 39.

For the whistleblowing claim, the claimant said she was dismissed because she reported a fellow employee, Amarpreet Kaur, for abusing a resident in the care home. She said her manager, referred to as Salvador, told her that if she pursued the complaint she would never work in the care industry again. The respondent argued that the claim lacked credibility because the report was made two days after the alleged incident and after the claimant had become aware of a complaint about her performance. The tribunal noted that an investigation had taken place, the complaint against Amarpreet Kaur was not upheld, and the claimant was dismissed on 9 December 2020 on grounds of performance and conduct.

The tribunal declined to strike out the whistleblowing claim. It said the claim was apparent on the documentation and there was a clear evidential dispute about the sequence of events, so it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success. It also refused to make a deposit order in relation to that claim.

The religion or belief discrimination claim was much less clearly pleaded. The claimant had only ticked the relevant box on the ET1 and had not identified the religion or belief relied on or set out a coherent narrative of discrimination, although when questioned she referred vaguely to colleagues making comments about her hijab and religion. The tribunal did not strike out the claim, but found that it had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay a £200 deposit by 15 October 2021. If payment was not made on time, that claim would be struck out. The judgment also recorded that the remaining claims would be considered at a further closed preliminary telephone hearing on 6 December 2021.