Ms M Eemann v Quickfit Safety Belt Services Ltd: 3305512/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3305512/2024

Between

Ms M EemannClaimant

Quickfit Safety Belt Services Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARINGRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Codd

In person for claimant

Mr S Quick Director for respondent

Date 25 November 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The application that the unlawful deductions from wages and whistleblowing detriment claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order is dismissed.

[2]The claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed upon withdrawal.

REASONS

[1]This is a preliminary hearing to determine strike out or deposit orders.

[2]The claimant was employed as a belt maker by the respondent between 2nd November 2020 until 1st of April 2024. She went on extended sick leave on 29th of August 2023 and raised issues with the Health and Safety Executive in September 2023, which led to an inspection and a report on matters of concern at the respondent. She was paid statutory sick pay until on or around the 12 October 2023. The respondent argues that it only pays SSP for a 3 month period.

[3]The claimant is claiming public interest disclosure detriment because she alleges that she did not receive pay owing to her, because she had reported the respondent to the Health and Safety Executive. She says she did not receive written terms of employment and is owed pay from August, and outstanding SSP pay for her sick leave until her employment ended.

[4]On the 1st of March 2024 the respondent wrote to the claimant stating that if it did not hear back from the claimant by the end of the month they would treat her as having resigned. The Respondent has confirmed that the 1st of April 2024 is the effective date of termination and the claimant agrees that she was unfit to return to work at this point.

[5]She issued her claim on the 30th of May 2024, having attended early conciliation between 24th of April and the 30th of April 2024.

[6]A case management hearing took place on the 5th of March 2025. That listed this hearing to determine the issues set out below.

[7]The issues for determination at today’s hearing are as follows:a. Whether the claim for public interest disclosure detriment set out below should be struck out on the grounds that the claimant has no reasonable prospect of showing it has been brought in time;

b. Whether a deposit should be ordered to be paid by the claimant on the grounds that she has little reasonable prospect of success of showing that the allegations or arguments in the public interest disclosure detriment claim have been brought in time;

c. Whether any or all of the claim for unpaid wages as set out below should be struck out on the grounds that the claimant has no reasonable prospect of showing it has been brought in time;

d. Whether a deposit should be ordered to be paid by the claimant on the grounds that she has little reasonable prospect of success of showing that the allegations or arguments in any or all of the unpaid wages claim have been brought in time;

e. If the claimant states that she intends to bring an unfair dismissal claim, whether that claim should be struck out on the grounds that she has no reasonable prospect of showing that there was a dismissal on or around the end of February 2024 or any other date;

f. Whether a deposit should be ordered to be paid by the claimant on the grounds that she has little reasonable prospect of success of showing that the allegations or arguments that there was a dismissal as above; Preliminary issues

[8]At the outset of the hearing, I clarified with the claimant whether she was bringing an unfair dismissal claim. Neither party has supplied a witness statement. The information the claimant has supplied is limited to her medical condition.

[9]The claimant confirmed that she spoke with the respondent in March or April 2024 and confirmed that she was unfit to return, and that it would have been unsafe for her to do so. She agreed that she could be dismissed on ill health grounds. She confirmed that she did not seek any compensation for an unfair dismissal claim and therefore I dismiss this claim upon withdrawal (insofar as it is contained in the ET1).

Legal Principles

[10]Section 23 and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 contain the relevant time limits for the presentation of the claims in this matter. A claim for detriment or unlawful deductions, must be presented to the Tribunal within three months of the deduction / detriment complained of (subject to extensions of time afforded by early conciliation).

[11]Where a series of linked detriments and or deductions are claimed the time runs from the date of the last deduction / detriment.

[12]The relevant date for Jurisdiction is the 25th of January 2024. Any act complained of before this time may lack jurisdiction, unless the Tribunal were to extend time.

[13]Rule 38 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 sets out that a claim can be struck out if the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction or it has no reasonable prospect of success.

[14]Rule 40 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 sets out that, a deposit order can be made if a claim has little reasonable prospect of success. The making of a deposit order is a two stage process, which must take into account the claimant’s means. Evidence and Submissions

[15]I have considered the material submitted by the claimant, which are clinical letters concerning her disability. She had suffered a temporary loss of vision as a result of this condition, which was ongoing between August 2023 up to the point of her dismissal.

[16]Given the absence of any witness evidence, I have heard submissions from both parties and no cross examination evidence was sought by Mr Quick. I have allowed both parties to address the relevant issues and directed them to the matters they need to address.

[17]The claimant was assisted by a Mackenzie friend, who has interpreted for her previously. She also had the benefit of the court interpreter. At times the communication with the claimant was difficult due to the nature of a CVP hearing interacting with the need for interpretation and sound quality.

[18]At the end of submissions I confirmed that I would inform the parties of the outcome in bullet point form, and send my written reasons separately.

Findings

[19]There is no dispute that the relevant date for Jurisdiction is the 25th of January 2024. The respondent accepts that it did not dismiss the claimant until the 1st of April 2024. Until this point it accepts that the claimant remained an employee.

[20]Mr Quick confirmed that he was unclear as to the precise amount of SSP paid, but his ET3 purports to show that there was only a three month window of payments taking place. He argues that he did not receive ongoing sick notes, although this is at odds with the response in the ET1 and only raised this when I asked him about it.

[21]The claimant argues that she provided updated sick notes until February 2024, when she says she decided to stop as she was not getting paid. She was supported by the Job centre at this time, in attempting to claim these payments.

[22]Had the claimant exhausted her right to SSP she would have been eligible to payments up and until the 12th of March 2024 (28 weeks). The claimant argues that these were a series of deductions taking place.

[23]Given the acceptance that the SSP was not paid for the statutory period, and the dispute about whether the sick notes were provided, I am satisfied that there is sufficient argument of alleged deductions over time. I am also satisfied that the claimant alleges she provided sick notes until February, that if this is true, then this last deduction would place her claim in time.

[24]Therefore, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the claimant demonstrating that the claim was brought in time, if she served a series of sick notes as claimed. Whether the claimant served her sick notes on the respondent and whether a deduction took place (or there was an entitlement to suspend the sick pay), is a matter for the final hearing. However, based upon the current evidence I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of demonstrating the claim was presented in time.

[25]In relation to the detriment claim, the claimant made an alleged protected disclosure to the Health and Safety Executive in September 2023. She argues that their inspection, coincided with the cancelation of her sick pay. She argues that the detriment is the non payment of her SSP thereafter. If that is right, she may argue that a series of interlinked detriments took place, with each non payment of the SSP. In those circumstances this would place the detriments on the same timescales as the unpaid wages claim, with the last detriment being in time. Given that this is an argument open to the claimant, if she can evidence both the entitlement to SSP, she may well be able to evidence that her detriment claim is also in time.

[26]Whether there is any merit to the claim is a matter for final hearing. The fact that she made contact with the HSE is not in dispute. Whether the respondent was aware of this is a matter for the final hearing. Application of the law to the facts

[27]For all the reasons stated above, if the claimant can evidence that she provided ongoing sick notes to the respondent then she is likely to be able to demonstrate a series of unlawful deductions may have taken place until at least February 2024, which would bring the claim in time. The detriment claim is fundamentally linked to this.

[28]On this basis I cannot find that there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ in the claimant establishing that either claim is in time. That is a matter to be tested on the evidence. Therefore the application for strike out fails and is dismissed.

[29]In respect of the deposit orders, neither party addressed me specifically upon this. For all of the reasons set out above, the test for making a deposit order is not made out. The claimant may well be able to evidence her claim. There is therefor a tangible prospect of success to this claim (subject to the evidence). The application for a deposit order is also dismissed.

[30]I will issue a separate case management order timetabling the matter to an attended final hearing. Case No: 3305512/2024 Claimant: Ms M Eemann Respondent: Quickfit Safety Belt Services Ltd Heard at: Watford On: 24 - 25 November Before: Employment Judge Baran (sitting alone) Appearances: Claimant: Ms Eeeman (in person, assisted by a court appointed interpreter) Respondent: Mr Cowley (consultant)

Findings

[1]The complaint in relation to unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded only in relation to statutory sick pay due and owing between 31 August 2023 and 28 February 2024. The respondent is ordered to pay the sum of £3,063.20 gross unlawfully deducted from the claimant’s pay.

[2]The complaint of failure to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment is well-founded. Pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Rights Act 2002 the above award is increased by the sum of £781.24 being two weeks’ gross pay.

[3]The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 is not wellfounded and is dismissed. Case No: 3305512/2024 Approved by: