Did not attend and was not represented For the v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020

The claimant presented an ET1 on 24 March 2020 ticking unfair dismissal and also indicating that the claim involved interim relief. In the accompanying statement he said he had been removed from the payroll, regarded that as a dismissal because he was a trade union representative, and sought interim relief. The respondent later contended that he remained employed, and the claimant subsequently sent further correspondence asserting that he had been dismissed and that the interim relief hearing should proceed.

At the hearing on 13 May 2020 the claimant did not attend. The tribunal reviewed the statutory conditions for interim relief under section 161 of TULCRA 1992 and section 128 of the ERA 1996, together with the ERA definitions of dismissal and effective date of termination. It concluded that, on the claimant's own case as at 24 March 2020, he had not been dismissed and had not been given notice of dismissal; he had only been told that a meeting would be held to consider possible dismissal. The tribunal therefore considered the claim, and at least the interim relief application, to have had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant emailed a formal withdrawal on 12 May 2020. The tribunal treated that as a withdrawal of the whole claim and dismissed the claim on withdrawal pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judge noted that if the claimant had intended only to withdraw the interim relief application, he would need to seek reconsideration of the dismissal judgment.

On costs, the tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the claim, or at least the interim relief application, had been made unreasonably and had no reasonable prospect of success. It referred to E T Marler Ltd v Robertson and rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, but did not make a finding that the claim was vexatious. The respondent sought £3,432, said to be a reasonable total if the time spent was necessary, but the tribunal considered the matter relatively simple and awarded a reduced contribution of £1,500 inclusive of VAT. In assessing means, it noted that the claimant had recently been paid about £24,000 in relation to earlier wage claims.