Miss P McNally v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd and others: 1303293/2017

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1303293/2017

Venue Birmingham

Hearing 5,6,7,8,9,12 and 13 November 2018

Between

Miss P McNallyClaimant

1) Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 2) Capita Business Services Ltd 3) Balvinder Singh 4) Naginder SandhuRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Camp

Date 13 November 2018

JUDGMENT

The proceedings against the second respondent, namely Capita Business Services Ltd, are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim against that respondent by the claimant. Employment Judge Camp 26 January 2018 Case Number 1303293/2017 1 VCD EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant Respondent Ms P McNally AND(R1) Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (R3)Mr Naginder Sadhu (R4) Mr Balvinder Singh JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT Birmingham ON 5,6,7,8,9,12 and 13 November 2018 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE VC Dean MEMBERS Mr RW White Mr J Reeves Representation For the Claimant: Mr Mortis, Solihull CAB lay representative For the Respondent: Ms Barry, of counsel JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that:

[1]The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal has been withdrawn and is dismissed.

[2]The claimant complaint of unlawful discrimination contrary to s13 of the Equality Act 2010 because of the protected characteristic of race has been withdrawn and is dismissed.

[3]The claimants complaint’s, in so far as they are in relation to acts or omissions that occurred before 30 May 2017 against the First respondent and before 6 June 2017 against the Third and Fourth respondents, are not presented within the time limits contained in s123 Case Number 1303293/2017 2 of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain said complaints and it is not just and equitable to extend time.

[4]The claimant’s complaints that she has been subject to unlawful discrimination of direct discrimination, contrary to s13 of the Equality Act 2010 because of the protected characteristic of sex, against the First, Third and Fourth respondents do not succeed and are dismissed.

[5]The claimant’s complaints that she has been subject to unlawful discrimination of harassment contrary to s 26 of the Equality Act 2010 because of the protected characteristic of sex against the First, Third and Fourth respondents do not succeed and are dismissed.

[6]The claimant’s complaints that she has been subject to a detriment being victimisation contrary to s27 of the Equality Act 2010 against the First, Third and Fourth respondents to the complaint do not succeed and are dismissed.