Claimant v Oilean (Training and Nurture) Ltd — 2021

Stephen Morton brought claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and a statutory redundancy payment. He had worked for Oilean (Training and Nurture) Ltd from 14 January 2011 until he resigned with immediate effect on 4 August 2020. In his resignation email he cited repeated data protection breaches, highly emotive/abusive emails, and his belief that his TUPE rights were being abused. At the hearing he confirmed that the unfair dismissal claim was one of constructive dismissal, and said the wage claim related to £31.66 for 2.26 hours said to be omitted from the July 2020 payslip.

The tribunal found that he knew of his right to bring an unfair dismissal claim and of the three-month time limit during the period between 4 August 2020 and January 2021. It accepted that he delayed starting early conciliation because he wanted to protect Debbie Watson and, on the wage claim, because the sum was modest. Applying sections 111(2)(a) and 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and noting that section 207B did not assist because early conciliation was not started in time, the tribunal held that he had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present either claim in time. Both claims were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The redundancy claim was pleaded as a 'redundancy payment under TUPE' and the claimant argued that the sale of the business was really a transfer to Love Corporate Limited. The tribunal found the basis of the claim confused, found no evidence that a TUPE transfer had taken place, and held that a statutory redundancy payment is not due 'under TUPE'. It also held that, even if the factual case on transfer were made out, it could not produce a successful redundancy payment claim against the respondent. The claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under Rule 37, applying the two-stage approach discussed in HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd.