Claimant v NG Bailey Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was for wrongful dismissal relating to notice pay. The tribunal found the Claimant was entitled to one week's notice under her contract, her weekly gross pay was £551, and her last payslip clearly showed payment of that sum as 'PILON' (payment in lieu of notice). The Claimant did not advance any arguments to counter the Respondent's evidence that notice pay had been correctly calculated and paid.
The claim related to a flexible working application under s.80H Employment Rights Act 1996 made on 7 September 2023. The Claimant alleged the Respondent failed to respond within the statutory three-month period required under s.80G(1B)(a). However, the Claimant was dismissed on 18 October 2023, before the three-month statutory response period had expired. The Respondent could not be criticised for failing to respond to a flexible working request when the period for response had not yet lapsed by the date of dismissal.
Facts
The Claimant worked for less than a year at Hinckley Point C nuclear power station as a Hinckley Support Operative. She was suspended in September 2023 following allegations about failure to clock in/out properly on site, a health and safety requirement. She was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2023 after it was found she had left site early on 31 occasions and failed to clock out on 15 occasions. Shortly before her dismissal, on 7 September 2023, she made a flexible working application. This was a preliminary hearing to consider the Respondent's strike-out application in respect of two specific claims.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims under rule 38 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the Claimant's payslip showed she had been paid her correct contractual notice entitlement of one week (£551) and she advanced no argument to the contrary. The flexible working claim failed because the Claimant was dismissed on 18 October 2023, before the statutory three-month response period (which ran from 7 September 2023) had expired, so the Respondent could not be criticised for not responding in time.
Practical note
A flexible working claim cannot succeed where dismissal occurs before the statutory response period has expired, regardless of whether the employer actually responded to the application.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400673/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Hinckley Support Operative
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No