Case 6012378/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Lewis v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012378/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal refused her application to amend to add constructive unfair dismissal because she did not have the required two years' service. It also recorded that she had not applied to amend to add automatic unfair dismissal, reasonable adjustments, direct sex discrimination, or victimisation claims, and that those matters were not within the ET1 or before the Tribunal.
The Working Time Regulations claims appeared to have been abandoned, but the Tribunal considered them out of caution and dismissed them. It found there was no breach of Regulation 11 in requiring a worker to work 12 days in a row provided 48 hours' uninterrupted rest was given. The Tribunal also found that any claim based on the admitted one-off March 2024 breach would have been out of time, with no basis to find it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The Tribunal dismissed the harassment related to sex claim because there was no explanation of how the statutory test was met and no basis on which sex appeared relevant to the alleged refusal or change of a toilet code. It dismissed the harassment related to disability claim because, taking the Claimant's case at its highest, she had not explained the link between disability and the alleged refusal of the code, and had no reasonable prospect of establishing that she was disabled at the relevant time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend to add a claim of constructive unfair dismissal because she did not have the required two years' service; the judgment states this claim was not part of the existing claim. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claims of detriment due to a breach of the Working Time Regulations and/or breach of Regulation 11 appeared to have been abandoned. The Tribunal reviewed them out of caution and dismissed them as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal found the harassment related to sex claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal found the harassment related to disability claim had no reasonable prospect of success, including because the Claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing disability at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Regulation 11 Working Time Regulations
- s45A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s101A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s20/21 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s27 Equality Act 2010
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.