Case 4105949/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Warren v Dundee Voluntary Action — 2019
- Case reference
- 4105949/2019
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Warren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Warren brought an unfair dismissal claim against Dundee Voluntary Action arising from his dismissal on 31 January 2019. At the start of the preliminary hearing on 29 August 2019, he accepted that he did not have the two years' qualifying service needed for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim.
Before the hearing, the claimant applied on 27 August 2019 to amend his claim to add a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. He said the protected disclosures were made in his written grievance and in remarks at the grievance hearing, and relied on the grievance process and what he had said that his dismissal was connected with taking out a grievance.
Applying the Selkent principles, including the balance of hardship, the tribunal accepted the amendment. It took account of the claimant's unrepresented status, the fact that his ET1 already indicated that he believed he was being dismissed for taking out a grievance, and the lateness of the application. It also noted that the amendment did not radically alter the overall case and that the respondent would have the grievance material and witnesses from the grievance hearing.
The tribunal did not decide whether the claimant had in fact made protected disclosures, and it did not require further particulars at that stage. It indicated that there might be a further preliminary issue on that point, or that the matter could proceed to a final hearing with all evidence heard together. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted at the hearing that he did not have sufficient qualifying service to pursue ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996, and that claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend so as to include a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, but it made no finding on the merits of that claim or on whether protected disclosures had in fact been made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited and another [1974] ICR 650
- balance of hardship
- interests of justice
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.