Mr. M Blenkinsop v ASDA Stores Ltd Heard: in public by telephone in the North East Region — 2023

At a preliminary hearing on 13 April 2023, the tribunal dealt with a claim presented on 20 December 2022 after early conciliation from 6 November to 18 December 2022. The claimant remained employed by ASDA Stores Ltd but had not worked since 21 November 2020, had been suspended on 22 November 2020, and had been on sick leave since December 2020. The tribunal refused his Rule 50 application for anonymisation.

The pleaded discrimination case consisted of direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and indirect age discrimination. The sex allegations were that Toni Parkinson told the claimant to lift more shopping 'because he is a big strong man' and that he was expected to carry more shopping than women. The age claim relied on a requirement that all workers work at the same speed, said to disadvantage workers in the 45-55 age bracket and the claimant. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had depression and had been genuinely unwell, but held that he had no reasonable prospect of persuading the tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time. It noted that he knew the facts by November 2020, that the last alleged act was in November 2020, that he did not present his claim until December 2022, and that while off sick he had continued to run his motor-trade business at times and had been applying for other jobs.

The tribunal therefore struck out the sex discrimination, harassment, and age discrimination claims because they were out of time. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint because the claimant was still employed. The original whistleblowing detriment complaint was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that he had misunderstood the legislation and had not made the protected disclosure alleged in the claim form. He later sought to advance a different whistleblowing detriment case based on alleged oral disclosures about PPE, equipment, duties, and damage to his van, but the application to amend was refused because it was a new, significantly out-of-time claim and the balance of injustice and hardship favoured refusal. No financial award was made, and the tribunal said the entire claim failed.