Claimant v Post Office Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because the Claimant's own case was that she had not been dismissed and that she did not resign, meaning no dismissal had occurred to ground an unfair dismissal claim.
The claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because the deductions had been made over a year before the claim form was lodged (outside the time limit), the deductions had been repaid, the Claimant was not pursuing financial loss, and she was not pursuing it as a s13 ERA claim but rather as generalised bullying.
The discrimination claim (described as bullying and unfair treatment) was dismissed because the Claimant did not assert that the discrimination she suffered was because of any protected characteristic within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Facts
The Claimant brought claims against Post Office Limited and an individual respondent, Gulam Mowla, alleging unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and discrimination/bullying. The Claimant represented herself at a preliminary hearing conducted remotely. The Claimant stated she had not been dismissed and did not resign. She accepted that wage deductions made over a year prior had been repaid and was not seeking financial compensation for them.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims for lack of jurisdiction. The claim against the second respondent failed due to non-compliance with ACAS Early Conciliation. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the Claimant's own case was that no dismissal occurred. The wages claim was out of time and had been resolved. The discrimination claim failed because the Claimant did not identify any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
A discrimination claim cannot succeed unless the claimant links the alleged treatment to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; generalised bullying or unfair treatment alone is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200291/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No