Cases→3201625/2024

Claimant v London Underground Limited

25 June 2025Before Employment Judge ReidEast London

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherfailed

The tribunal found that the meeting on 17 June 2024 was a disciplinary hearing within s13(4) ERA 1999 because the invitation letter referenced potential termination. However, the respondent did not breach the s10 right to be accompanied because the claimant never requested an alternative date when his chosen companion Mr Adams could not attend. There was therefore no refusal by the respondent of a request to be accompanied.

Facts

The claimant had been off sick since December 2023. He was invited to a case conference on 17 June 2024, which the invitation letter stated could result in termination on medical grounds. His chosen companion Mr Adams could not attend because he was not available at 12:00 and had concerns about payment for attendance. Neither the claimant nor Mr Adams requested an alternative date. The claimant attended the meeting alone, which in the event only discussed return to work arrangements, not termination.

Decision

The tribunal found the meeting was a disciplinary hearing within s13(4) ERA 1999 because the invitation referenced potential termination, even though the respondent argued this was an error and termination was not in fact discussed. However, there was no breach of the s10 right to be accompanied because the claimant never requested an alternative date when his companion could not attend, so there was no request for the respondent to refuse.

Practical note

An employer may trigger the s10 right to be accompanied even by an erroneous reference to disciplinary consequences in a meeting invitation, but there is no breach if the worker does not request an alternative date under s10(5) when their companion is unavailable.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Relations Act 1999 s.10Employment Relations Act 1999 s.13(4)Employment Relations Act 1999 s.11Employment Relations Act 1999 s.13

Case details

Case number
3201625/2024
Decision date
25 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
London Underground Limited
Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →