Ms E Lewis v Veolia ES UK Ltd and Others: 6012378/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6012378/2024

Between

Ms E LewisClaimant

Veolia ES UK Ltd and OthersRespondent

Before

Employment Judge C Sharp

Mr S Healy (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 14 August 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The Claimant’s application to amend dated 9 January 2025 to add a claim of constructive unfair dismissal is refused. The Claimant did not have the required two years’ service. The Claimant did not apply to amend to add claims of automatic unfair dismissal under s.101A Employment Rights Act 1996, failure to make reasonable adjustments under s20/21 Equality Act 2010, direct sex discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010, or victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010. Those claims are not within the ET1. They do not form part of the claim. The Claimant never disputed the list of issues prepared by Judge Brace on 3 January 2025 or argued that the automatic unfair dismissal claim was within the ET1 or before the Tribunal today.

[2]The Claimant’s claims of detriment due to a breach of the Working Time Regulations and/or a breach of the Working Time Regulations under Regulation 11 appear to have been abandoned. They are not part of the claims the Claimant now says she is seeking to advance. Out of an Case Number: 6012378/2024 2 abundance of caution, the Tribunal has reviewed the matter on the basis of the evidence before it and considers that it has no reasonable prospect of success as there has been no breach of Regulation 11 as asserted by the Claimant - it is lawful to require a worker to work 12 days in a row, provided they have 48 hours uninterrupted rest. The Claimant accepted that the one admitted breach in March 2024 was a one-off occasion, but her case is that having to work 12 days in a row was the reason she resigned; she is not relying on the one breach of Regulation 11. However, s45A Employment Rights Act 1996 (and s101A) requires an actual breach (and does not deal with dismissal of any employee); it is not a breach to be required to work 12 days in a row, so the Claimant’s argument must fail. In any event, in respect of the single breach of March 2024, if the Claimant changed the basis of her case to argue about that, the Claimant did not enter into ACAS early conciliation until 12 September 2024. She would have been out of time to bring such a claim and there is no basis on which the Tribunal could find it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to claim in time as she was working throughout the limitation period for no more than 48 hours a week. The claims are dismissed.

[3]The Claimant’s claim of harassment relating to sex has no reasonable prospect of success. There is no explanation in her statement how the statutory test is met. The Claimant’s alleged inability to get the code for the toilet is not affected by a suggestion that a man once or twice used the women’s toilet; the question is why the code was allegedly refused. There was no basis on which sex appears to be relevant; simply wanting to access the women’s toilet is not enough. The claim is dismissed.

[4]The Claimant’s claim of harassment relating to disability has no reasonable prospect of success. The claim is much more than limited that the Claimant now asserts – it is purely about whether Lisa Phillips or Lee-Anne Williams refused to give the Claimant the code to the women’s toilet. The Claimant has not explained the link between her disability and how the alleged refusal of the provision of the code related to her disability. The Claimant’s position has changed. She asserted in the ET1 she was refused the code; in her statement she now accepts she had it but claims it was changed. There are factual disputes between the parties which would need to be resolved at the final hearing, but taking the Claimant’s case at its highest, the Claimant simply relies on her need to use the toilet without addressing the role her disability played in the alleged refusal of the code. The Claimant says that her dignity was violated due to unwanted conduct relating to her disability, but in truth it appears that her position is as simple as she wanted to use the toilet because her alleged disability, and she asserts due to the lack of a code, she could not. The Claimant accepts in her statement that there were other toilets, though she says that they were some distance away. One can understand the difficulty if the only toilets were some distance away, but this is a factual dispute. The Respondent says that the Claimant Case Number: 6012378/2024 3 is not being truthful in her account. If this was the only issue, the Tribunal would be minded to issue a deposit order. However, the Claimant asserts that she is disabled due to a weak bladder. Her impact statement confirms that she has never had medical treatment for this condition. She says that there are no medical records, but also says she has consulted a doctor – this is a conflict which could only be resolved against the Claimant in the absence of disclosure of the medical record of that consultation. More critically, the Claimant also says in her impact statement that basic day-to-day activities were not significantly hindered; the main issue was that she felt stress and anxiety. That is not a day-to-day activity. The Claimant’s friends/colleagues have given statements which support this – the Claimant does not suffer a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. At its highest, the supporting witness statements tell the Tribunal that the Claimant has to use the toilet when she stops driving, and sometimes has an additional stop. This does not constitute a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. As a result, the Claimant has no reasonable prospect of success in relation to the contention that she was disabled at the relevant time and the disability harassment claim is dismissed.

[5]The final hearing will be vacated and the proceedings end. The above constitutes a summary of the reasons given as the Claimant did not attend. They are not the full written reasons and the parties are referred to the notes below.

REASONS

There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the Claimant's application for a postponement previously was refused on the basis that the Claimant provided no evidence and chose to absent herself. The Judge could have dismissed the claims on the grounds of non-attendance, but chose in the interests of justice to deal with the matter. The Claimant's application for a reconsideration simply repeats the arguments already rejected by the Tribunal. The Judgment explains in summary why the claims were struck out and the Claimant's application does not address any of those points sufficiently or engage with the merits of the decision. The Claimant asks for a different judge, but only Judge Sharp can reconsider her judgment and the Claimant has given no reason why Judge Sharp cannot - simply disagreeing with the outcome cannot support an argument of actual or apparent bias. Date: 13 October 2025 Approved by