Cases3306541/2022

Claimant v West London YMCA

16 February 2024Before Employment Judge M WarrenNorwichin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Detrimentnot determined

Claim amended from victimisation to detriment for alleging infringement of Working Time Regulations (s.45A ERA 1996). Respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were refused. The tribunal found there were disputed facts requiring resolution at full hearing, including the suspicious timing of the printer investigation on the same day claimant gave evidence for a colleague, allegations of unequal treatment, and delays in grievance processes. Case listed for full merits hearing.

Constructive Dismissalnot determined

Claimant alleges breach of trust and confidence term based on the same treatment detailed in detriment claim. Tribunal identified potential issues with timing of resignation (one month after grievance appeal outcome) and question of affirmation, but concluded disputed facts required full hearing. Respondent argued resignation coincided with plans for absence review meeting, but tribunal found this required testing at full hearing.

Facts

Claimant worked as Night Support Manager for seven years. On 26 March 2021, she gave evidence at an Employment Tribunal for a colleague's Working Time Regulations claim. On the same day, the respondent commenced investigation into her use of a workplace printer for personal purposes (printing exam materials for her son). She was issued a first written warning on 2 July 2021. She accepted she used the printer but alleged unequal treatment, disputed she used colour printing or respondent's paper, and claimed she could not override the IT system as alleged. She raised a grievance which was rejected, appealed (rejected 4 February 2022), and resigned on 18 March 2022, claiming the treatment caused mental ill health.

Decision

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend her claim from victimisation to detriment under s.45A ERA 1996 (alleging infringement of Working Time Regulations). Both strike-out and deposit order applications were refused. The judge found there were core disputed facts requiring full hearing, including the suspicious timing of the printer investigation coinciding with the tribunal evidence, allegations of unequal treatment, and whether grievance processes were properly conducted. The case was listed for a five-day full merits hearing.

Practical note

Tribunals will not strike out or order deposits where core facts are genuinely disputed, even where there are concerns about prospects of success, particularly where timing of employer actions raises suspicion of retaliatory motive.

Legal authorities cited

Arthur v Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0121/19Rojha v Zinc Media Group plc [2023] EAT 39Sami v Avellan [2022] EAT 22Hemdan v Ishmail UKEAT/0021/16Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126Morgan v Royal Mencap Society [2016] IRLR 428Jansen van Rensberg v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames EAT/0956/07

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27Working Time Regulations 1998ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.45A(1)(f)

Case details

Case number
3306541/2022
Decision date
16 February 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Night Support Manager
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No