Mr Marcin Laszkiewicz v Viridor Waste Management Ltd: S/4105540/2017
JUDGMENT
The claimant's complaint alleging unfair dismissal by the respondents having been withdrawn by the claimant at this Preliminary Hearing that part of his claim against the respondents is dismissed by the Tribunal, under Rule 52 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, but the remaining parts of the claim alleging breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay), and alleged unlawful direct discrimination on grounds of race by the respondents against the claimant both remain standing, and those remaining parts of the claim will proceed to a one-day Preliminary Hearing in public before anREASONS
[1]In the course of the Case Management Preliminary Hearing held before me, on the morning of Friday, 19 January 2018, the claimant advised me that, as per his completed Preliminary Hearing Agenda, he was now withdrawing his complaint of unfair dismissal, as set forth in his ET1 claim form, but still insisting upon the remaining parts of his claim alleging breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay), and alleged unlawful direct discrimination on grounds of race by the respondents against him, both as detailed in his ET1 claim form.[2]Following discussion, and clarification of the claimant's position, the claimant confirmed that he was withdrawing that part of the claim against the respondents, but not the other two parts, and I treated his oral statement to that effect as confirmation of his previous written withdrawal of that part of the claim under Rule 51 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, thus bringing that part of the claim before the Tribunal to an end.[3]In these circumstances, having heard further from Ms Irvine, the respondents' representative, and the claimant not objecting, I further decided it was appropriate to issue a Rule 52 Judgment, dismissing that part of the claim against the respondents, following upon its withdrawal by the claimant, which means that the claimant may not commence a further complaint against the respondents raising the same, or substantially the same, complaint of unfair dismissal against them, arising from the termination of his asserted employment by them, as a welder, which employment status the respondents, in any event, dispute.[4]For the avoidance of any doubt, the remaining parts of the claim brought by the claimant against the respondents both remain standing, and they will proceed to the one-day Preliminary Hearing in public before an Employment Judge sitting alone on 20 April 2018, as ordered at this Case Management Preliminary Hearing