In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant had worked as a carer from 18 November 2019. His ET1 said that in March and April 2020 he was told to stay home during the Covid-19 period, and that when he asked to return he was told he would receive no money for the time lost. The tribunal treated the dismissal complaint as a constructive unfair dismissal claim, but struck it out as having no reasonable prospects of success. It held that, even if the pleading were read as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required by s.108 ERA 1996.

The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the ET1 to add discrimination on the grounds of marriage status. Applying Selkent Bus Company v Moore and the balance of injustice and hardship approach, it found the proposed amendment was a substantial new allegation rather than a relabelling exercise and that the application was late. Relying on Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd and the claimant's own account, the judge concluded that the respondent's concern was about Covid-19 exposure risk from the claimant's household circumstances, not because he was married or in a civil partnership.

The unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed upon withdrawal because the claimant accepted that the amounts claimed had already been paid. The judgment records no monetary award and the claims were struck out in their entirety.