Claimant v GE Beauty Glasgow Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing on an amendment application only. The disability discrimination claim remains live and will proceed to final hearing. Disability status was conceded by the respondent.
This is a preliminary hearing on an amendment application only. The constructive dismissal claim remains live and will proceed to final hearing. Claimant resigned on 9 October 2024.
Claimant formally withdrew this claim on 24 February 2025. The claim was dismissed on 25 February 2025. Claimant had sought to argue she should be paid for hours not worked.
Claimant sought to amend to add breach of contract claim alleging respondent failed to offer shifts at specific locations. Amendment refused as out of time, new claim rather than relabelling, no reasonable prospects of success (claimant's alleged verbal term contradicted written contract), and claimant can raise same issue within existing constructive dismissal claim.
This is a preliminary hearing on an amendment application only. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim remains live and will proceed to final hearing. Claimant argues respondent should have offered shifts only at specific locations as a reasonable adjustment.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent beauty retailer at various locations including Fort Kinnaird and Princes Street. She resigned on 9 October 2024. She brought claims of disability discrimination, constructive dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. At a preliminary hearing in January 2025, she was asked to clarify her wages claim. She withdrew that claim in February 2025 and sought to substitute a breach of contract claim alleging the respondent failed to offer her shifts at her preferred locations (Fort Kinnaird/Princes Street) between 10 August and 20 September 2024, which she said breached a verbal agreement despite her written contract stating she could be required to work at any client site.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment application. The judge determined this was a new claim rather than relabelling, it was out of time, had no reasonable prospects of success (the alleged verbal term contradicted the written contract and claimant had not previously challenged it), and the claimant could raise the same factual issues within her existing constructive dismissal and reasonable adjustments claims. The disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Practical note
An amendment to add a new breach of contract claim will be refused where it contradicts express written contractual terms, is out of time, and the factual allegations can be pursued within existing claims for constructive dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 4107095/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No