Claimant v HPI UK Holding Ltd

Claim was one day out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim by 5 December 2023, but he presented on 6 December 2023. He knew about time limits and had obtained an ACAS certificate on 1 September 2023 but could not decide whether to proceed. In any event, the tribunal found no constructive dismissal as the hotel did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence by rejecting his grievance and grievance appeal.

Claim was one day out of time and tribunal declined to extend time. On merits, the claimant resigned because his grievance and appeal were rejected, but the tribunal found the hotel provided adequate answers and did not breach trust and confidence. A reasonable person would not have felt the hotel behaved in a way likely to breach trust and confidence.

Claims were between 1 and 12 days out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring claims in time. On merits, none of the alleged disclosures were protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996 because they did not contain information tending to show criminal offences or health and safety dangers. The claimant's concerns about carpet cleaning machines and alleged bonus-related cost-cutting were either opinions not information, or lacked reasonable belief and public interest.

Ten alleged detriments relating to whistleblowing were claimed. All were out of time (latest detriment 12 days late, earliest much longer). On merits, the tribunal found that even where detriments occurred, none were done because of protected disclosures. Most alleged detriments were either not detriments at all or were done for legitimate operational or management reasons unconnected to any alleged disclosures.

Two allegations: (1) assignment to linen porter work May-October 2022, claimed 10 months out of time; (2) being called 'Nea Dan' by supervisor until March 2023, claimed 6 months out of time. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds given extreme delay and lack of prejudice to claimant. On merits, tribunal found insufficient evidence of age discrimination in linen porter assignment and that 'Nea Dan' was a term of respect used by younger colleagues which claimant did not object to at the time.

Claim relating to being called 'Nea Dan' was 6 months out of time and tribunal declined to extend time. On merits, the conduct was not unwanted as the claimant did not mind at the time and never complained despite being vocal about other issues. The term related to age but did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Tribunal upheld the claim for unpaid service charge for the period 21-31 August 2023. The hotel's service charge policy was poorly drafted but the tribunal interpreted it to mean that employees leaving after 20th of a month should receive their share for that month. The claimant received no service charge in his final pay packet despite working until 6 September 2023, and was therefore entitled to his share for 21-31 August 2023.

Tribunal calculated that for the proportion of the holiday year worked (249 days out of 365), the claimant was entitled to 9.72 days' holiday pay. At a daily rate of £100.88, this equated to £980.55 (or £1,012.84 on an alternative calculation). The claimant was actually paid £1,018.89, so was not underpaid. The claim failed.