Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew claims identified at paragraphs C9-C16 in the ET1/Claim form and consented to dismissal on withdrawal.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Substantive claim alleges claimant was told her grievance about Holly Jones would not be investigated because Holly Jones was pregnant, amounting to sex discrimination.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Substantive claim alleges claimant was not promoted because of a policy not to promote women in future due to Holly Jones' pregnancy, and was treated less favourably regarding email restrictions compared to male colleague.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Issue of whether C2 was disabled person adjourned to part-heard hearing. Associative disability discrimination claim alleges C1 held accountable for C2's actions and less favourable treatment.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Substantive claim alleges dismissal reason included breach of English-only speaking policy when speaking Romanian to co-workers, amounting to race discrimination.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Substantive claim alleges detriments (suspension, unfair disciplinary process, dismissal, unfair grievance process) following protected acts on 9 Sept, 11 Sept, 9 Oct, and 11 Oct 2023.
Amendment application granted to add harassment claims as alternatives to victimisation detriment claims prior to protected act of 11 October 2023. Substantive merits not yet determined.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. S103A ERA 1996 whistleblowing dismissal claim alleges dismissal was because of protected disclosures made on 9 Sept, 11 Sept, 9 Oct, and 11 Oct 2023.
Amendment application granted to add s100(1)(c) ERA 1996 health and safety dismissal claim based on disclosures of 9 Oct and 11 Oct 2023. Subject to time limit argument to be determined at final hearing if necessary.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Substantive claim not yet determined.
Preliminary hearing dealt with amendment applications and scope of claims only. Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay not yet determined.
Facts
Two claimants, mother (C1) and daughter (C2), brought multiple discrimination and whistleblowing claims against their former employer. C1 alleged she was subjected to sex, race, and associative disability discrimination, victimisation, harassment, and automatic unfair dismissal after raising grievances about a colleague (Holly Jones) and making protected disclosures about health and safety and an English-only speaking policy. The preliminary hearing dealt with multiple amendment applications and case management issues. C2 did not attend the hearing due to medical unfitness, preventing determination of whether she was a disabled person.
Decision
The tribunal granted C1's applications to amend to add harassment claims and an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. It dismissed both claimants' applications to add individual respondents (Mr and Ms Sheehan) as there was no prejudice to the claimants given the corporate respondent's liability. C1 withdrew breach of contract claims and a pregnancy discrimination claim. The hearing was adjourned part-heard to determine disability status, strike-out applications, and finalize listing.
Practical note
Amendment applications to add alternative legal labels to existing factual allegations (e.g., harassment as alternative to victimisation) are likely to be granted where there is minimal evidential prejudice to the respondent, but applications to add individual respondents will be refused where the corporate employer is already liable and statutory defences are not being pursued.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000598/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- 1Servco Ltd
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep