Claimant v WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleged dismissal for asserting a statutory right (requesting training and being denied appeal). Tribunal found the right to receive training was not a relevant statutory right under s.104(4) ERA 1996. Even if treated as s.100 health and safety claim, claimant could not demonstrate serious and imminent danger in a supermarket setting. Claim struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success and also dismissed as time-barred.
Facts
Claimant was employed as a night-shift assistant from September 2023 to December 2024 when summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. He claimed automatic unfair dismissal for asserting statutory rights (requesting training and appeal against dismissal). He notified ACAS on 9 January 2025 and filed his claim on 27 April 2025, two days after the deadline. He had previous tribunal experience, having brought a whistleblowing claim in 2022 which was struck out. He was in Poland from 23 April to 6 May dealing with inheritance matters.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim on two grounds. First, it was time-barred because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit it in time - he had internet access, knew the procedures, and had two months between receiving the ACAS certificate and travelling to Poland. Second, even taking his case at its highest, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success as requesting training and appeal rights were not relevant statutory rights under s.104(4) ERA 1996.
Practical note
A request for workplace training and the right to an appeal do not constitute 'relevant statutory rights' under s.104(4) ERA 1996 for automatic unfair dismissal claims, and unrepresented claimants with previous tribunal experience will not easily satisfy the 'reasonably practicable' test for late claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001018/2025
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- night-shift assistant
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No