Claimant v Royal Mail Group Ltd & Others — 2024

The hearing on 20 March 2024 concerned whether the claims against the second and third respondents should be struck out. The claimant did not attend and had not sought a postponement. The tribunal decided to proceed, noting that the claimant had previously been directed to set out the legal basis for the claims against those respondents and had done so in writing, and that a further hearing would cause unnecessary delay and expense.

The tribunal held that it only has power to determine claims conferred by statute. It noted that s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right not to be unfairly dismissed by an employer, and that the provisions governing unfair dismissal refer to employer and employee. It also noted that s.146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 similarly imposes liability on an employer in relation to detriments connected with trade union activities.

The tribunal contrasted those provisions with legislation that expressly makes individuals liable, such as ss.110-112 of the Equality Act 2010 and s.47B(1A) ERA 1996, and said there was no equivalent express provision for personal liability under s.94 ERA 1996 or s.146 TULRCA. It rejected the claimant's submission that recent cases and legal journals supported the inclusion of the second and third respondents, and said it was not aware of any authority that would make individuals who are not the claimant's employer liable under those provisions.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claims against the second and third respondents had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment did not record any monetary award or other remedy, and did not determine the position of the claims against the first respondent in this strike-out decision.