Mr A Collins Mr D Pitala v IFG Cucina — 2023

The First Claimant’s ET1, which also included the Second Claimant, was presented as a multiple claim form alleging health and safety breaches, asbestos-related concerns, and defamation of character. Part of the claim had earlier been accepted as a health and safety complaint, but at the preliminary hearing the First Claimant clarified that the case was not about dismissal or resignation and was instead about the Respondent’s alleged failure to follow health and safety in relation to asbestos exposure.

The tribunal held that, on the way the case was pleaded and explained, there was no claim within the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It noted that a general complaint that an employer failed to follow health and safety does not itself amount to a claim the tribunal can determine. The judgment considered whether the facts could amount to a health and safety detriment claim under s.44 ERA 1996, a whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996, or an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100 ERA 1996, but concluded that none of those claims had been advanced.

The tribunal also recorded that defamation was outside its jurisdiction. It found that there was no reasonable prospect of success because there was no identifiable tribunal claim to pursue, and struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(a) of the ET Rules. It noted that the Second Claimant’s early conciliation point was not correct because the claim was on the same claim form, but said both claims stood or fell together because the ET1 did not set out a separate jurisdictional basis for the Second Claimant.