Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claim had little reasonable prospect of success due to lack of documentary evidence supporting the claimant's assertion that her fixed-term contract had been extended to 2023. A deposit order of £50 was made. The claim relates to alleged dismissal for making protected disclosures about COVID-19 isolation breaches. The substantive claim has not yet been determined at a final hearing.
The claimant's claim for detriment by reason of whistleblowing or making a protected disclosure remains live and has not been determined at this preliminary hearing. The alleged detriments related to treatment after the claimant raised concerns about COVID-19 isolation breaches.
A disability discrimination claim was brought in both claim forms. At the preliminary hearing on 17 March 2023, complaints about events before 11-13 December 2021 were dismissed with consent. The remaining disability discrimination complaints continue and have not yet been determined at a final hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as an FC Associate at Amazon's distribution centres from May 2021 under a fixed-term contract. She alleges she made protected disclosures in November-December 2021 about the respondent requiring COVID-positive workers to attend work in breach of isolation rules. She was told she had COVID in November 2021 and claims she was pressured to return to work, which she refused. Her employment ended in March 2022. She claims her contract had been extended verbally to January 2023 and she was dismissed for whistleblowing. The respondent contends the fixed-term contract was extended only to March 2022 and ended as planned.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints under sections 44 and 100 ERA (health and safety detriment and dismissal). The amendment was considered a substantial new claim, raised 18 months after the original claim and well out of time, with no satisfactory explanation. The balance of prejudice favoured refusal. The tribunal also found the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA had little reasonable prospect of success due to lack of documentary evidence supporting her assertion that her contract was extended to 2023, and made a deposit order of £50.
Practical note
Litigants in person must clearly articulate the factual and legal basis of their claims early in proceedings — multiple preliminary hearings provide ample opportunity to do so, and late applications to add substantially different claims well outside limitation periods are unlikely to succeed even where the applicant lacks legal representation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1300826/2022
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- FC Associate
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No