Case 4107637/2021 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107637/20215 Held on November 2021 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Voinea v Interpreter Mr C Tondor Caledonian Logistics Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107637/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107637/20215 Held on November 2021 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Voinea
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Voinea lodged his ET1 in February 2021 before his dismissal and later asked to add the dismissal to the case. At the preliminary hearing the tribunal accepted that he had tried to comply with earlier orders for better and further particulars, that he had lacked interpreter support at earlier hearings, and that strike out for breach of order would be disproportionate. The judge applied Selkent and allowed amendment of the ET1 to include unfair dismissal.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal did not decide the merits but held that the claim was arguable and should proceed to a hearing. The claimant’s case was that he had been moved off an ARTIC driving route after a dispute with a customer, had been offered class 2 or warehouse work, and was later dismissed following an incident involving a forklift truck. The judge noted the claimant’s position that other drivers had done similar things and that CCTV might be relevant, but made no findings on liability.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal recorded that disability was conceded. It struck out the section 15 claim concerning non-payment of breaks because the pleadings gave no reasonable prospect of success. The remaining discrimination claims were not struck out: the reasonable adjustment claim about allowing him to continue as an ARTIC driver on another route was allowed to proceed out of time, but was made subject to a £100 deposit order, and the direct discrimination claim about unpaid breaks was also made subject to a £100 deposit order because it had little reasonable prospect of success. No substantive remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 was allowed to be amended to include unfair dismissal, and the claim was allowed to proceed to a merits hearing. No merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustment claim about allowing the claimant to continue as an ARTIC driver on a different route. It was treated as out of time but allowed to proceed subject to a deposit order of £100. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim that managers refused to pay for breaks because of disability. The tribunal refused strike out but ordered a deposit of £100 because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act claim relating to non-payment of breaks. The tribunal struck it out for lack of reasonable prospects and insufficient pleading. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 37
- Rule 39
- Selkent
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Chandhok & others v Tirkey
- Attorney General v Barker
- Hemdan v Ms Ishmail and Another
- Doran v Department of Work and Pensions
- Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames and others
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd
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.