Ms A Rani and Ms E Bowen v Shelter, The National Campaign for Homeless People: 1301474/2017 and 1301477/2017

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1301474/2017, 1301477/2017Venue BirminghamHearing 7 August 2017
Ms A Rani and Ms E BowenClaimantShelter, The National Campaign for Homeless PeopleRespondent
Employment Judge HughesIn person for claimantMr Ali (instructed by Counsel) for respondentMr D Bunting (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 16 May 2019

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claims in respect of health and safety breaches and defamation are dismissed because the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them. Signed by _______________________ on 7 August 2017 Employment Judge Hughes Order sent to Parties on 8 August 2017 Case Number: 1301474/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms A Rani v Shelter, The National Campaign for Homeless People Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Birmingham On: 19 January 2018 Before: Employment Judge Anstis Appearances For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mr D Bunting (counsel) JUDGMENT[1]The Claimant’s claims of detriment and/or automatically unfair dismissal for making public interest disclosures or asserting statutory rights are dismissed.[2]The Claimant’s claim of sex harassment was presented outside the primary limitation period and it is not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to consider that complaint.[3]The remainder of the Claimant’s claims continue to a full hearing. Employment Judge Anstis Signed on 19 January 2018 Note: Reasons for the decision having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is received from either party within 14 days of the sending of this record of the decision. Case Numbers:1301474/17 1301477/2017 dk EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimants Respondent Ms A Rani(1) Ms E Bowen(2) AND Shelter, the National Campaign for the Homeless Limited[4]The respondent has not made an unauthorised deduction from the first claimant’s wages. Case Numbers:1301474/17 1301477/2017[5]The second claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.[6]The second claimant has not been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 47 B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the claim is dismissed.