Case 3313401/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Doris v Royal Mail Group Limited and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313401/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr J Doris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided preliminary issues about employment status, worker status and time limits. It found that the claimant was an employee of R3 for ERA purposes from 6 March 2019 until a date no earlier than early April 2020 and no later than 23 June 2020, and was also an employee of R3 within section 83 EQA for at least that period. It found there was no contract between the claimant and R1 at the relevant dates, so the claimant was not a worker of R1 under section 230 ERA.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker of R2 within section 230 ERA, without deciding the precise start and finish dates or which statutory limb applied. It did not decide whether any party fell within section 41 EQA or section 43K ERA.
All claims against R4 were dismissed on withdrawal. Certain wage, holiday pay and unfair dismissal claims against R1, R3 and R2 were dismissed because of employment status or time limits, but the alleged R2 deductions from April 2023 to July 2023 were found to be in time and a specified detriment claim was not dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Any unfair dismissal claim against R1 was dismissed because of employment status. The judgment was on preliminary issues and did not determine any unfair dismissal claim against other respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims against R1 and R3 for unauthorised deduction from wages were dismissed. Claims against R2 for alleged deductions before April 2023 were dismissed as out of time, but the alleged deductions from April 2023 to July 2023 were found to be in time. This preliminary judgment did not decide liability for the in-time R2 claim. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims against R1 and R3 were dismissed. Holiday pay claims against R2 were dismissed except for payment in lieu of holiday on termination. This preliminary judgment did not decide liability for any remaining holiday pay claim. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment stated that a detriment claim identified at item 6.1.6 of the list of issues was not dismissed. It did not decide whether any party fell within section 43K ERA or determine the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | All claims against R4 were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not identify the specific claim types withdrawn against R4. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 230(3) ERA
- section 41 EQA
- section 43K ERA
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.