Miss T Jarman v Mark Thompson Transport Ltd: 2409628/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2409628/2020
Between
Miss T JarmanClaimantMark Thompson Transport LtdRespondent
Before
Judge BJ Doyle, Mrs L Heath and Ms P OwenIn person for claimantMs J Ormond (instructed by solicitor) for respondentDate 24 August 2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s complaints of detriment and unfair dismissal contrary to sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 respectively are not well-founded. The claim is dismissed. _____________________________ Judge Brian Doyle Date: 23 July 2021[2]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 5 August 2021 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 2409628/2020 2 Notes 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.
REASONS
[1]Having concluded evidence and submissions on the second day of the hearing, on 23 July 2021, the Tribunal gave its oral judgment with outline reasons. The judgment (without reasons) was sent to the parties on 5 August 2021 in accordance with the usual practice. The Tribunal had reminded the parties of the provisions of rule 62, but no request for written reasons had been made at the hearing.[2]In a series of four emails sent to the Tribunal on 27 July 2021, 29 July 2021 and 3 August 2021 (2 emails), referred to Judge Doyle by the Tribunal administration on 5 August 2021, the claimant appeared to be indicating her intention to appeal the judgment and she also appeared to be asking for written Case Number: 2409628/2020 2 reasons and applying for a reconsideration of the judgment.[3]The judge has treated those emails as being a request for written reasons in the first instance. These are the Tribunal’s written reasons for what was its unanimous decision.[4]The judge additionally addresses the question of reconsideration and appeal in the final paragraph below, to which the claimant’s attention is particularly drawn.
The claim
[5]Early conciliation commenced on 14 July 2020 and ended on 27 July 2020.[6]The claim (form ET1) was presented to the Tribunal on 10 August 2020. It contained a single complaint of unfair dismissal, expressly relying upon section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, although implicitly also relying upon sections 44 and 98 of the Act. Within the particulars of claim is a reference to the claimant having made a public interest disclosure to her employer on 10 July 2020, three days after her employment had ended, but the claim does not assert any reliance upon sections 47B or 103A of the Act.[7]The response (form ET3) to the claim was presented on 28 October 2020. It points out that the claimant does not have two years’ service necessary to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint (that is, one that relies upon section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996). It appears to proceed on the basis that the claimant was relying upon the public interest disclosure provisions in sections 43B (perhaps intended to be a reference to section 47B) and 103A of the Act, rather than the health and safety provisions in sections 44 and 100 of the Act.[8]At a case management hearing on 14 May 2021,