Mr W Dixon v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: 2200756/2017
JUDGMENT
The claim Failure of employer to pay or unauthorized deductions have been made (WA) and Suffer a detriment and/or dismissal relating to being. Not being a proposing to become a trade union member (TUM) is struck out.REASONS
[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £1000 following a preliminary hearing held on 21st September 2017. The Order was sent to the claimant on 12th October 2017.The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of Failure of employer to pay or unauthorized deductions have been made (WA) and Suffer a detriment and/or dismissal relating to being. Not being a proposing to become a trade union member (TUM) is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of Rule 69, the Judgment sent to the parties on 22 November 2017, was issued in error. A Corrected Judgment is attached. Employment Judge Livesey Date: 24 November 2017 ................24 November 2017 ....... ....................................................... Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing. Case No: 2200756/2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr W Dixon Respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd CORRECTED JUDGMENT The allegation that the Claimant suffered a detriment by the Respondent’s failure to consult a full-time official of his Trade Union prior to his suspension is struck out. CORRECTED REASONS On 12 October 2017, London Central Employment Tribunal issued a Deposit Order, whereby Employment Judge Clarke considered that the Claimant’s allegation that he suffered a detriment by the Respondent’s failure to consult a full-time official of his Trade Union prior to his suspension had little reasonable prospect of success. The Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £1,000 as a condition of being permitted to continue to advance those allegations or arguments. The Judge had had regard to any information available as to the Claimant’s ability to comply with the Order in determining the amount of the deposit. The Claimant has failed to pay the Deposit Order. The allegation that the Claimant suffered a detriment by the Respondent’s failure to consult a full-time official of his Trade Union prior to his suspension is therefore struck out under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Claimant’s remaining detriment claims and of wages due will proceed to a telephone case management preliminary hearing on 27 November 2017 along with case 2200712/2017 Mr M Langworthy v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. JUDGMENT[2]The proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.