Miss M Waskowska v Warrens Warehouse & Distribution (Midlands) Ltd: 3314766/2023 and 3311816/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3314766/2023, 3311816/2024

Between

Miss M WaskowskaClaimant

Warrens Warehouse & Distribution (Midlands) Limited PRELIMINARY HEARINGRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto

Not represented for claimant

Mr Curtis (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 24 February 2025

JUDGMENT

DISMISSING CLAIM Made pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.

REASONS

[1]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure provides that, “If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.”

[2]Today’s hearing was listed on 6 December 2024 during the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Freshwater where the claimant was present.

[3]The order made by Employment Judge Freshwater stated that, “A further case management hearing will take place by CVP on 24 February 2025 at 10.00 am. The aim of the hearing is to issue further case management directions once the claimant has applied to amend her claim form and the respondent has had the chance to respond to that application.”

[4]At paragraph 24 Employment Judge stated that, “The claim was discussed at the hearing in order to clarify which complaints the claimant wished to bring. Those are set out in paragraph 25 below. The claimant understands that she must apply in writing to amend her claim form. Once that has been done, and the respondent has had the chance to amend the response form, more discussion will take place about the claims.”

[5]At paragraph 25 it states, “The case was listed today to determine how the claim should proceed as it appeared the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. This is because the claimant was not employed by the respondent for two years. Information on the tribunal file suggests that the claim should only have been issued in respect of notice pay (this was the direction of the Employment Judge at the time). However, the claim in its entirety was issued and responded to without any part of it being returned to the claimant. The respondent agreed at the hearing today that there was sufficient information in the particulars of claim to include claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, the claimant introduced new facts which form the basis of those claims at the hearing. She therefore needs to apply to amend her claim form.”

[6]The claimant sent to the Tribunal on 13 February 2025 an email in which she stated that, “I wish to include the following claims in my amended claim form: 1. Automatically Unfair Dismissal (Protected Disclosure): - Pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. Unfair Dismissal (Health and Safety): - Pursuant to section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 3. Notice Pay: - As I was not compensated for my notice period. 4. Breach of Contract: - Due to being required to work 45 hours per week when my original contract stipulated 37.5 hours per week. ### Justification for Amendments: The additional facts presented relate to my rights and responsibilities as an employee engaging in protected disclosures regarding workplace safety and compliance issues. These claims directly pertain to my circumstances leading up to my dismissal, and consequently, my request for fair compensation under the relevant employment laws. I hereby request that the Tribunal permits these amendments to my claim form in order to substantiate the matters discussed during our most recent hearing.”

[7]While the claimant has set out the headline legal claims she has not set out the facts on which the case is to be based. Mr Curtis explained that his understanding was the facts on which the claimant seeks to rely are not set out in the claim form as it is currently drafted, and that view appears to be consistent with the position set out by Employment Judge Freshwater who points out that the “the claimant introduced new facts which form the basis of those claims at the hearing” .

[8]In the absence of the claimant and noting that I am not able to identify the basis of the claimant’s amendment from the material before me and further there being no explanation from the claimant for her failure to attend. I decided to dismiss the claim pursuant to rule 47.

[9]The case is currently listed for a final hearing on 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 November 2026. Those hearing dates will now be vacated and that hearing will not take place. Approved by: