Case 3335473/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Ms H Donnelly, Solicitor. — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335473/2018
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 23 August 2019, Employment Judge Ord considered whether the claimant’s complaint against Manpower UK Ltd had any reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had started work with the respondent on 26 February 2018 and was placed on assignment with TNT International. On 24 July 2018 he resigned from the TNT assignment, saying that complaints he had raised about colleagues had not been resolved, and he also emailed the respondent saying he wished to resign from the assignment.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not present a legally sustainable claim. When asked to identify the complaint against the respondent, he said the grievance process had taken too long and had been unnecessarily drawn out, including a grievance meeting being arranged when he was on holiday. He also said the delay was deliberate because TNT was a main client of the respondent and the respondent did not wish to investigate allegations about TNT.
The tribunal held that, on the case as advanced, there were no allegations of discriminatory or other unlawful conduct by the respondent. It stated that it had no jurisdiction over the conduct of parties to a contract of employment while that contract subsisted, absent such allegations, and that the claimant’s complaint about commercial considerations did not found a tribunal claim. The claimant’s claim was therefore dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a specific legal cause of action. The tribunal treated the matter as a preliminary issue and dismissed the claim because no legally sustainable claim within its jurisdiction had been identified. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.