Mrs H Chalabi v King’s Oak Primary School: 2309609/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2309609/2024

Between

Mrs H ChalabiClaimant

King’s Oak Primary SchoolRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Tsamados

In person for claimant

Date 17 April 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows: The claim is struck out under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025 rule 38(1)(a) because it has no reasonable prospect of success, the complaint being one which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with. Employment Judge Tsamados Date: 17 April 2025

[2]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 22 April 2025 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE P Wing Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to Employment Tribunal Judgments All judgments and written reasons for the judgments are published online shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case. They can be found at: Case No: 2309609/2024 www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions.

[3]Case No: 2309609/2024 Page 1 of 4 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs H Chalabi Respondent: King’s Oak Primary School Heard at: London South, in public, by CVP On: 17 April 2025 Before:

REASONS

These reasons are provided at the request of the Claimant in her email dated 7 May 2025. Whilst they are more formalised and contain background information they do not depart from the oral reasons given on the day.

Background

[1]By a claim form received by the Employment Tribunal on 13 November 2024 after a period of early conciliation between 9-13 August 2024, the claimant brought a complaint about the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide her with a reference and/or providing an unsatisfactory or bad reference to subsequent employers resulting in the loss of several employments.

[2]On 6, 8, 21 and 28 January 2025, the Claimant sent emails to the Employment Tribunal including a number of attachments but she did not copy these to the Respondent, which (whilst unbeknown to her at the time) is a requirement on both parties when writing to the Tribunal.

[3]By letter dated 7 January 2025, Employment Judge Fowell advised the Claimant that he was considering striking out her claim on the basis that it referred to an unsatisfactory reference and tax statement, that the Tribunal does not have any general jurisdiction over unfair treatment, only in respect of acts of discrimination, ie things done or not done on grounds of age, sex or other protected characteristics, together with breaches of other statutory Case No: 2309609/2024 Page 2 of 4 duties and in those circumstances it did not appear that it was a claim over which the Tribunal had any jurisdiction and so it has no reasonable prospects of success. He gave the Claimant 14 days from the date of the letter in which to object to the proposal to strike out her claim, giving her reasons in writing or to request a hearing at which she can make them.

[4]It would appear that one or more of the above communications from the Claimant in effect formed her objection to the proposed strike out.

[5]By letter dated 3 February 2025, notice of a public preliminary hearing set for 17 April 2025 with a time estimate of two hours was sent to the parties.

[6]In a response received by the Employment Tribunal on 25 February 2025, the Respondent submitted that the claim form had been received outside of the relevant time limit and in any event did not disclose any claim that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with. They asked for the claim to be struck out.

[7]From the claim form and response the Claimant was employed as a Teaching Assistant at the Respondent school from 6 January 2020 until she resigned on two weeks’ notice on 16 October 2023. Today’s hearing

[8]Today’s hearing was listed to determine whether the Claimant had brought a claim over which the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction.

[9]At the start of the hearing, I explained this in straightforward terms to the Claimant. I said that if she had not brought a claim regarding a matter that the Tribunal has the power to deal with, then I will have to strike it out, ie dismiss it, it out on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of success. I also explained that from what I had read, it appeared to me that her claim is about the reference(s) or non-provision of reference(s) which have affected her ability to find and/or to retain employment. The Claimant nodded her head in agreement with this.

[10]I further explained that the problem with this is that whilst it is apparent that she complains of unfair treatment by the Respondent at work which caused her to resign, she does not identify any actionable claim in the Tribunal that she makes against them beyond her complaint about the references, ie there is nothing linking the allegations about the references to a matter that the Tribunal can deal with.

[11]I explained that it is possible to bring a complaint of post-termination victimisation but in order to do so she would need to identify a “protected act” that caused her to be victimised (in the giving of a bad reference or no reference). I further explained that a “protected act” means in broad terms doing something by reference to the Equality Act 2010, for example complaining of discrimination or stating that she intended to bring a Tribunal claim about discrimination. The Claimant indicated that there was nothing of that nature. Case No: 2309609/2024 Page 3 of 4

[12]I explained to the parties that I had copies of the claim form and response and a series of emails from the Claimant, some with attachments, which appear to only have been sent to the Tribunal. I told the Claimant that when writing to the Tribunal the parties must copy the correspondence to each other. Mr Cameron said that these might be in the 47 page bundle he sent to the Tribunal and the Claimant last night. I did not have a copy and so I adjourned to obtain one and to consider the contents.

[13]On resuming the hearing, I told the parties that I had received the bundle but it does not include the emails and attachments I had referred to (above). I said that from those documents (which I appreciated Mr Cameron did not have) and from reading the bundle, it did appear to me that the claim was clearly about either the non-provision of a reference(s) or the provision of an unsatisfactory reference(s). I further stated that if that is what the Claimant is bringing then it appears to me that the way forward is for me to make a decision. I also stated that if the Claimant states that she is bringing a claim that does fall within our jurisdiction, then I can adjourn for the emails and attachments to be copied to Mr Cameron and then we can proceed further. The Claimant responded that her claim is only about the references.

[14]I then said that on that basis I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and so I am striking it out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Post Judgment

[15]I gave the Claimant the following by way of guidance. I explained that if she had any legal claims about references then they need to be brought in either the County Court or the High Court. I told her that there was advice available online from gov.com, ACAS and the Citizens Advice Bureaux websites. I also explained that the usual claims include defamation or negligent misstatement. But I stressed that I was only speaking from memory of these matters, having not dealt with them for a number of years since leaving practice as a solicitor. I suggested she take legal advice. I also stressed that an employer does not have to provide a reference (unless it amounts to victimisation as above) but if it does then that reference has to be accurate and true, if it is not, and a person suffers loss resulting from that, then it is possible to take legal action.

[16]The Claimant raised her concerns about the way she was treated on several occasions thereafter but again her focus was on the issue of references. I sympathised and said that with the best will in the world there was nothing I could do about the matter.

[17]The Claimant said that she only had a copy of one reference provided but the Respondent would not give her copies of any others. I told her that she should take advice about the possibility of obtaining copies under the data protection legislation.

[18]I advised the parties as to their right to request written reasons and that Case No: 2309609/2024 Page 4 of 4 Judgments , and reasons if requested, are published on a public online register.

[19]The Claimant asked if it was possible to anonymise her name. I said that she could make an application but warned her it was unlikely to be successful if it was purely on the basis that she wanted the matter to remain confidential. There would have to be a compelling reason for this, given there are competing protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, of open justice, on the one hand, and the right to privacy, on the other.

[20]The Claimant continued speak about her general unfair treatment at work but at this point I brought the hearing to an end.

[21]The Claimant asked if she could speak to Mr Cameron outside as to next steps and support. I said that was a matter for her but perhaps it was unrealistic to expect support from the Respondent. I suggested that perhaps the way forward was for her, if possible, to rely on someone else for a reference or seek advice about possible legal action on the references which had already been provided.

[22]I stressed that I was not in a position to comment on the allegations that she made and equally I acknowledged that the Respondent denied any wrongdoing.