Cases14000673/2024

Claimant v NG Bailey Limited

17 April 2025Before Employment Judge Mr G. KingBristolin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Otherwithdrawn

Claimant's claim under the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 was withdrawn against all three Respondents.

Breach of Contractwithdrawn

Claimant's claim in respect of failure to provide itemised pay statements was withdrawn against First Respondent and against Second and Third Respondents.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Claim of protected disclosure detriment against all three Respondents was presented out of time and Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Detrimentstruck out

Claim in respect of failure to allow accompaniment to a relevant meeting against all three Respondents was presented out of time and Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claim to have been brought in time. Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

Claims of direct discrimination against First Respondent relating to incidents on 25 July 2023, 5 September 2023 and 6 September 2023 were presented out of time, but Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time limits. Claims allowed to proceed. Claims against Second and Third Respondents dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments against First Respondent was presented out of time but Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time limits. Claim allowed to proceed. Claims against Second and Third Respondents dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend.

Harassment(disability)not determined

Claim of harassment against First Respondent was presented out of time but Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time limits. Claim allowed to proceed. Claims against Second and Third Respondents dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend.

Victimisationnot determined

Claim of victimisation against First Respondent was presented out of time but Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time limits. Claim allowed to proceed. Claims against Second and Third Respondents dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend.

Holiday Paywithdrawn

Claim in relation to holiday pay against Second and Third Respondents was withdrawn by the Claimant.

Unlawful Deduction from Wageswithdrawn

Claim in respect of wages against Second and Third Respondents was withdrawn by the Claimant.

Wrongful Dismissalwithdrawn

Claim of wrongful dismissal against Second and Third Respondents was withdrawn by the Claimant.

Facts

The Claimant brought multiple claims of disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and contract-related claims against three Respondents. She was employed by the First Respondent and alleged incidents of discrimination occurring on 25 July 2023, 5 September 2023 and 6 September 2023. The Claimant pursued internal grievance and appeal processes before bringing her claims. She had trade union representation (GMB) during internal processes but represented herself at Tribunal. The Claimant withdrew several claims including those under Fixed Term Employees Regulations, failure to provide pay statements, holiday pay, wages and wrongful dismissal claims.

Decision

This was a preliminary hearing on time limits. The Tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing and failure to allow accompaniment claims against all Respondents as out of time, finding it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought them in time despite her disability and union representation. The Tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for disability discrimination claims (direct discrimination, reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation) against the First Respondent only, finding the delay caused minimal prejudice and the Claimant had acted reasonably promptly after her Stage 3 appeal. Claims against Second and Third Respondents were dismissed as out of time and unlikely to succeed on merits.

Practical note

Having trade union representation during internal processes will generally defeat a 'not reasonably practicable' argument for non-discrimination claims, but will not prevent a just and equitable extension for discrimination claims where the claimant acted promptly after exhausting internal procedures and has limited prospects against certain respondents.

Legal authorities cited

Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] IRLR 116Chohan v Derby Law Centre [2004] IRLR 685Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119Syed v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1979] IRLR 335Dedman v British Building and Engineering [1974] I.C.R. 53Paczkowski v Sieradzka [2017] I.C.R. 62Consignia Plc v Sealy [2002] ICR 119Robinson v The Post Office [2000] IRLR 804

Statutes

Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002Equality Act 2010 s.123(1)

Case details

Case number
14000673/2024
Decision date
17 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No