Ms B Pawlicka v DWP Government Recruitment Service — 2022

The tribunal refused Ms B Pawlicka's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 2 April 2022. The application was based on her argument that the respondent's non-attendance at the interim relief hearing meant she should automatically have been granted interim relief under s.129(9) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Employment Judge Eeley held that this was not correct. The reasons explain that s.129(9) only applies once the requirements of s.129(1) are satisfied. The tribunal said the claimant had to be found entitled to interim relief under s.129(1) before the order-making provisions in s.129(2) to (9) came into play, and that the respondent's non-attendance did not by itself entitle her to interim relief.

The tribunal also considered further documents sent after the application, including emails dated 4, 7 and 9 April 2022 and attachments concerning a 16 December 2021 discussion about whether the claimant would be given a permanent contract. The document recorded only that she 'would like to be considered for a permanent contract' subject to successful completion of the Line Manager Assessment, and did not confirm that her contract had in fact been made permanent. The claimant's point about the absence of an ET3 was rejected as a separate issue with no bearing on interim relief. The reasons add that the interim relief decision had no bearing on the substantive claim in the ET1, which would be determined in the usual way at a full merits hearing.