Mr P Jambagi v PLK Chicken UK Ltd T/a Popeyes Louisiana Chicken: 6019450/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6019450/2024

Between

Mr P JambagiClaimant

PLK Chicken UK Ltd T/a Popeyes Louisiana ChickenRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Ahmed

In person for claimant

Ms Phoebe Mather (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 1 July 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The allegation that on 23 June 2024 the Claimant was off sick for three days and Simon Wood asked him to provide a medical certificate whereas his colleague Rhianna was not asked is struck out as an allegation of direct race discrimination as well as an allegation of racial harassment.

[2]The Claimant’s complaints and allegations under The Working Time Regulations 1998 are all struck out as being out of time save for an allegation that in June 2024 the Claimant was not provided with or permitted 20-minute breaks as required by Regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

[3]All of the Claimant’s complaints of an unlawful deduction of wages are struck out save for a claim for unpaid wages in June 2024 (unpaid meetings) and the claim set out in paragraph 1 below.

[4]The application for a deposit order is refused. Page 1 of 12

[1]The Claimant’s application to amend his claim to bring a complaint of an unlawful deduction of wages of £92.41 (as set out at paragraph 3 at pages 94 and 95 of the bundle for the hearing) is allowed.

[2]The Claimant’s application to amend his claim to include a complaint of victimisation is refused;

[3]The Claimant’s application to amend his claim to rely on the following allegations as direct race discrimination and/or racial harassment (as set out at paragraphs 2.2.2 – 2.2.5.10 of the list of issues appended to the Order of 16 January 2026) is granted.

[4]The Claimant’s application to amend to include allegations set out in the Claimant’s email of 20 February 2026 is refused;

REASONS

[1]This was a Preliminary Hearing to determine the Respondent’s application for a strike out of some of the allegations or alternatively for a deposit order and to determine the Claimant’s application for an amendment of his claim.

[2]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Team Member from 9 January 2024 to 18 November 2024. He began ACAS early conciliation on 18 September 2024. The Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 30 October 2024. The Claim Form was presented to the Tribunal on 22 November 2024.

[3]By way of background there have been two Preliminary Hearings prior to this. The first Preliminary Hearing took place by telephone on 1 April 2025 before Regional Employment Judge Clark. The Claimant represented himself as he has done throughout. The Respondent was represented by a solicitor.

[4]At that hearing the complaints were identified as follows:4.1 Direct race discrimination;

4.2 Harassment related to race;

4.3 Victimisation;

4.4 Breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of daily rest periods;

4.5 Breach of the National Minimum Wage;

4.6 Whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair constructive dismissal for whistleblowing;

4.7 Unauthorised deductions from wages. Page 2 of 12

[5]Although the Claimant had identified some reasonably clear allegations relating to the above complaints in his Claim Form the position was far from clear on the majority of the complaints. Regional Employment Judge Clark indicated in his summary that given the circumstances it was not possible to clarify the issues beyond a few key points.

[6]The Claimant was therefore directed to provide further information in due course. He was given extensive and helpful guidance in the Order to assist him. A further Preliminary Hearing was listed to clarify the issues and make appropriate case management orders. An order was also made for the Claimant to have the assistance of a Kannada interpreter. Unfortunately, the hearing listed for 12 August 2025 had to be postponed as a Kannada interpreter could not be sourced.

[7]A second Preliminary Hearing took place on 16 January 2026 this time in person at Nottingham before Employment Judge V Butler. Ms Mather who appears for the Respondent at this hearing also represented the Respondent then.

[8]Whilst there was no interpreter on that occasion it does not appear that there was any difficulty in understanding the Claimant. I should add that I have not had any difficulty in understanding him at this hearing either. The Claimant does not seek an interpreter for the final hearing.

[9]At the second Preliminary Hearing the Claimant confirmed that he did not make a protected disclosure and withdrew his whistleblowing claims. A judgment dismissing both his detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing was subsequently issued. Also withdrawn was a claim of unauthorised deduction of wages in respect of 10 hours’ pay.

[10]A list of issues had been prepared in advance of the second Preliminary Hearing based on information the Claimant had provided in response to the Order of Regional Employment Judge Clark. Employment Judge V. Butler noted at paragraph 5 of her order that: “The Respondent asserted, and it was clear to me in parts, that the Claimant seeks to introduce new allegations into his claim.”

[11]The Respondent’s position was that not only did the Claimant require an amendment but that some of the allegations that were being advanced had no or little reasonable prospect of success. They sought an order striking out of some of the complaints/allegations set out in the draft list of issues. Alternatively, they sought an order that the Claimant should be ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of pursuing those allegations or complaints.

[12]Accordingly, Employment Judge Butler ordered that the matter should be listed for a further Preliminary Hearing to:12.1 determine the Claimant’s application to amend his claim:

12.2 determine the Respondent’s application to strike out the claim or for a deposit order: Page 3 of 12

12.3 Make further case management orders (including leave for the Respondent to amend its defence):

[13]In preparation for that hearing, the Claimant was ordered to provide further information as to:13.1 how much he claimed for the shift underpayments and how he had calculated it,

13.2 the dates he attended meetings but was not paid,

13.3 how much he claimed and how he had calculated it.

13.4 on which dates he met with Simon Wood and exercised his right to rest breaks.

[14]The above information was provided by the Claimant on 23 January 2026. Furthermore, on 20 February 2026, the Claimant set out his formal application to amend and the information requested in a lengthy 12 page document. Within it the Claimant set out a number of new allegations for the first time which had not appeared in the earlier draft list of issues.

THE LAW

[15]The leading case on amendments is Selkent Bus Company v Moore

[1996] IRLR 661

, which sets out the following guidance: “In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant leave for amendment of an originating application a tribunal should take into account all the circumstances and should balance the injustice and hardship of allowing the amendment against the injustice and hardship of refusing it. Relevant circumstances include:(a) The nature of the amendment, ie whether the amendment sought is a minor matter such as the correction of clerical and typing errors, the addition of factual details to existing allegations or the addition or substitution of other labels for facts already pleaded to, or, on the other hand, whether it is a substantial alteration making entirely new factual allegations which change the basis of the existing claim.

(b) The applicability of statutory time limits. If a new complaint or cause of action is proposed to be added by way of amendment, it is essential for the tribunal to consider whether that complaint is out of time and, if so, whether the time limit should be extended under the applicable statutory provisions.

(c) The timing and manner of the application. Although the tribunal rules do not lay down any time limit for the making of amendments, and an application should not be refused solely because there has been a delay in making it, it is relevant to consider why the application was not made earlier. An application for amendment made close to a hearing date usually calls for an explanation as to why it is being made then and not earlier, particularly where the new facts alleged must have been within the knowledge of the applicant at the time the originating application was presented.”

[16]In Vaughan v Modality Partnership

[2021] ICR 535

the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that Tribunals should focus on what will be the real practical consequences of allowing or refusing the amendment. If the application to amend is refused how severe will the consequences be in terms of the prospects of success of the claim or defence; if permitted what will be the practical problems in responding. This requires a focus on reality rather than assumptions. Refusal of an amendment Page 4 of 12 will self-evidently always cause some perceived prejudice to the person applying to amend. They will have been refused permission to do something that they wanted to do, presumably for what they thought was a good reason. ……. the real question is will they be prevented from getting what they need. This requires an explanation of why the amendment is of practical importance because, for example, it is necessary to advance an important part of a claim or defence. No one factor is likely to be decisive. The balance of justice is always key.

[17]In Choudhury v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Limited [2022] the EAT made it clear that the starting point in any amendment application is to identify the specific amendment being sought before going on to consider the balance of hardship test.

[18]In relation to striking out and deposit orders the relevant provisions are contained in Rules 38 and 40 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the “Rules”)

[19]Rule 38 states: “(1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds— (a) that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success;”

[20]Rule 40 states: “(1) Where at a preliminary hearing the Tribunal considers that any specific allegation or argument in a claim, response or reply has little reasonable prospect of success, it may make an order requiring a party (“the depositor”) to pay a deposit not exceeding £1,000 as a condition of continuing to advance that allegation or argument (“a deposit order”). (2) The Tribunal must make reasonable enquiries into the depositor’s ability to pay the deposit and have regard to any such information when deciding the amount of the deposit.”

[21]There are two stages in considering striking out a claim. The first stage involves a finding that one of the specified grounds for striking out has been established. The second stage requires the tribunal to decide as a matter of discretion whether to strike out the claim (see HM Prison Service v Dolby

[2003] IRLR 694

[22]It will generally not be appropriate to strike out a claim where the central or core facts necessary to prove the case are in dispute. It is not appropriate to conduct a mini-trial. The Tribunal should take the Claimant’s case at its highest unless there are exceptional circumstances (see North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias

[2007] IRLR 603

[23]Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) deals with time limits on wages claims and states:(1) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal — (a) that his employer has made a deduction from his wages in contravention of section 13 (including a deduction made in contravention of that section as it applies by virtue of section 18(2)),

(2) Subject to subsection (4), an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with— Page 5 of 12 (a) in the case of a complaint relating to a deduction by the employer, the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made, or (b) in the case of a complaint relating to a payment received by the employer, the date when the payment was received.

(3) Where a complaint is brought under this section in respect of— (a) a series of deductions or payments, or (b) [not relevant] the references in subsection (2) to the deduction or payment are to the last deduction or payment in the series or to the last of the payments so received.

(4) Where the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under this section to be presented before the end of the relevant period of three months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable. The allegations

[24]Leaving aside for a moment the new allegations of 20 February 2026 the list of issues attached to the Order at the second Preliminary Hearing sets out those allegations which the Claimant intends to pursue which appear to require amendment. The allegations set out in the list of issues is as follows (for the sake of convenience I adopt the same numbering as the Order): 2. Direct race discrimination 2.2 Did the Respondent do the following things:2.2.1 On 23 June 2024, the Claimant was off sick for three days and Simon Wood asked him to provide a medical certificate whereas his colleague Rhianna was not asked to.

2.2.2 Simon Wood made changes to the Claimant’s time sheet on shifts between January and April 2024.

2.2.3 Simon Wood reduced his working hours dramatically after his complaint on 29 May 2024.

2.2.4 Simon Wood rostered the Claimant alongside Josh despite the Claimant’s request not to work with him.

2.2.5 On 29 June 2024 did the Claimant’s shift Manager, Josh, do the following things?2.2.5.1 Tell the Claimant he could not prepare his own food to eat on breaks whereas others could, and he was only given food to eat that was already prepared and ‘out of time’.

2.2.5.2 Follow the Claimant to multiple work areas for more than four hours.

2.2.5.3 Confront the Claimant about the complaints he had made about his timesheet in front of other staff.

2.2.5.4 Threaten to kill the Claimant.

2.2.5.5 Make a racial slur: “this is not India, go back to your country”

2.2.5.6 Physically intimidate the Claimant.

2.2.5.7 Throw a sauce bottle at the Claimant.

2.2.5.8 Shout aggressively at the Claimant. Page 6 of 12

2.2.5.9 Attempt to delete a recording of the incident the Claimant had made on his phone.

2.2.5.10 Threaten to file a false complaint against the Claimant if he reported it. 3. Harassment related to race 3.1 Did the Respondent do the following things:

3.1.1 On 23 June 2024, the Claimant was off sick for three days and Simon Wood asked him to provide a medical certificate whereas his colleague Rhianna was not asked to.

3.1.2 Simon Wood made changes to the Claimant’s time sheet on shifts between January and April 2024.

3.1.3 Simon Wood reduced his working hours dramatically after his complaint on 29 May 2024.

3.1.4 Simon Wood rostered the Claimant alongside Josh despite the Claimant’s request not to work with him.

3.1.5 On 29 June 2024 did the Claimant’s shift Manager, Josh, do the following things?3.1.5.1 Tell the Claimant he could not prepare his own food to eat on breaks whereas others could, and he was only given food to eat that was already prepared ‘out of time’.

3.1.5.2 Follow the Claimant to multiple work areas for more than four hours.

3.1.5.3 Confront the Claimant about the complaints he had made about his timesheet in front of other staff.

3.1.5.4 Threaten to kill the Claimant.

3.1.5.5 Make a racial slur: “this is not India, go back to your country”

3.1.5.6 Physically intimidate the Claimant.

3.1.5.7 Throw a sauce bottle at the Claimant.

3.1.5.8 Shout aggressively at the Claimant.

3.1.5.9 Attempt to delete a recording of the incident the Claimant had made on his phone.

3.1.5.10 Threaten to file a false complaint against the Claimant if he reported it. 4. Victimisation

4.1 Did the Claimant do a protected act and raise complaints of race discrimination on the following dates:4.1.1 On 30 June 2024, to Simon Wood verbally.

4.1.2 On 30 June 2024, in an e-mail to Ayaz (Operations Manager).

4.1.3 On 1 July 2024, in a meeting with Ayaz to discuss his complaint.

4.1.4 On 9 July 2024, in his appeal.

4.1.5 On 9 August 2024, at a second meeting with Ayaz.

4.1.6 On 20 August 2024, to Nina in HR. Page 7 of 12

4.1.7 On 2 September 2024, in the investigation meeting with Simon Wood.

4.1.8 On 10 September 2024, in his appeal sent to Nina in HR.

4.1.9 On 11 September 2024, in an e-mail to Nina in HR.

4.1.10 On 13 September 2024, to Nividita (Shift Manager).

4.1.11 On 14 September 2024, in his appeal to Simon Wood.

4.1.12 On 1 October 2024, in an e-mail to Nina in HR.

4.1.13 On 1 November 2024, at his appeal hearing chaired by Craig (Operations Manager).

4.2 Did the Respondent do the following things:4.2.1 At the grievance hearing on 1 July 2024, Ayaz failed to listen to the Claimant’s grievance.

4.2.2 At the grievance hearing on 1 July 2024, Ayaz said there was insufficient evidence of harassment and did not uphold the grievance.

4.2.3 On 1 July 2024, Simon changed the Claimant’s shifts from AM to PM.

4.2.4 Craig (Operations Manager) overturned Simon Wood’s decision to partially uphold the Claimant’s grievance.

4.2.5 The Respondent continued to put the Claimant on shifts with Josh despite the Claimant’s request not to work with him.

4.2.6 Reduce the Claimant’s hours.

4.2.7 On 20th July 2024, Nina (in HR) rejected the Claimant’s request not to deal with Ayaz and scheduled a further meeting with Ayaz on 23 July 2024.

4.2.8 On 23 July 2024, Nina delivered the same outcome as Ayaz did on 1 July 2024.

4.2.9 After 11 September 2024, Simon scheduled shifts outside the Claimant’s availability.

4.3 By doing so, did it subject the Claimant to detriment?

4.4 If so, was it because the Claimant did a protected act?

4.5 Was it because the Respondent believed the Claimant had done, or might do, a protected act? DISCUSSION AND SUBMISSIONS

[25]The Respondent does not take issue with allegations 2.2.5.1 to 2.2.5.10 as being matters on which the Claimant should be permitted an amendment (if it is necessary) nor does it seek to strike out those allegations.

[26]The Respondent does seek a strike out of allegation 2.2.1 to 2.2.4. Ms Mather argues that the Claim Form is clear in that the allegations of harassment and discrimination are limited solely to the incident with Shift Manager Josh on 29 June 2024. There is no basis for establishing less favourable treatment. In the alternative Ms Mather argues that leave should not be granted for an amendment on Selkent principles. No good reason has been advanced as to why they were not pleaded in the original Claim Form. If the Claimant’s application were permitted, there would be Page 8 of 12 considerable hardship and injustice for the Respondent namely an increase in the size and cost of the Respondent’s disclosure exercise, a substantial new factual inquiry, significant increase the length of the hearing and associated costs, difficulty in obtaining witness evidence as some of the employees such as Simon Wood and Ayaz Kassam have left and the forensic prejudice associated with delay.

[27]The Respondent also argues that the allegations would now be out of time and time should not be extended on just and equitable principles. The burden is on the Claimant but he has failed to show why it is appropriate to extend time. The Respondent submits it was reasonably practicable to bring the wages claim in time.

[28]The Claimant submitted skeleton arguments for this hearing. He argues that the delay is not his fault but that of the Tribunal in that an earlier hearing was cancelled by the Tribunal, that he is a litigant in person and that the acts in question were acts extending over a period up to the end of his employment. CONCLUSIONS Amendment and striking out of the discrimination and harassment allegations

CONCLUSIONS

[29]I shall deal firstly with the application to strike out the Claim or for an order for a deposit. This is now limited to the four allegations at paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 of the list of issues.

[30]I asked the Claimant what the race or ethnicity of the comparator Rhianna was for allegation 2.2.1. The Claimant does not know. Without a comparator where the incident relies largely on a comparison of treatment that makes it very difficult to run an argument on direct discrimination or racial harassment.

[31]Moreover, asking for a medical certificate on the face of it is difficult to establish as less favourable treatment, as it likely a medical certificate would be requested from any employee regardless of race.

[32]I therefore consider that allegation 2.2.1 does not have any reasonable prospect of success and is therefore struck out.

[33]As for allegations 2.2.2 to 2.2.5.10, whilst I take on board the arguments from Ms Mather I shall grant leave to amend the claim for the following reasons:33.1 The prejudice on the time point can be dealt with by allowing the amendment subject to the time point being preserved for determination (see Galilee v The Commissioner of The Police of The Metropolis).

33.2 The allegations are referred to in the context of other issues, some of which are already pleaded. They largely amount to re-labelling. Where an amendment is largely re-labelling it should not be refused an amendment.

[34]The Claimant is therefore granted leave to amend to pursue the complaints at paragraphs 2.2.2 to 2.2.5.10 on the list of issues as allegations of direct race discrimination and harassment.

[35]In my judgment it is not appropriate to strike out the allegations at 2.2.5 to 2.2.10 nor to make a deposit order. There is clearly a core of disputed facts and as Page 9 of 12 such it is not appropriate to strike out (see North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias). These allegations can only be determined after hearing all the evidence. I accept Ms Mather’s point that on the face of it there seems little connection with the Claimant’s race but it may go to establishing a pattern of behaviour. If the Claimant can, for example, establish that changes were made to his time sheets or that his working hours were reduced and is able to show a prima facie case then the Respondent will need to provide a non-discriminatory explanation. Much will depend on the evidence and as it is fact-sensitive and thus it is not appropriate to strike out or to order a deposit. Victimisation

[36]The application to amend to include allegations of victimisation are however refused in their entirety. Whilst the Claimant mentions the word ‘victimisation’ in the Claim Form he gives no particulars of it at all. The reference to retaliation in the Claim Form is about the wages issue and not in connection with any protected act. It is not therefore a re-labelling exercise.

[37]The Claimant refers to 13 protected acts but provides no prima facie evidence that he has actually done a protected act.

[38]To allow an amendment would cause serious hardship to the Respondent. It will considerably lengthen the proceedings, add to their costs, involve considerable extra work in having to contact witnesses some of whom have or might have left the Respondent’s employment. Both Ayaz Kassam and Simon Wood have left. This is a type of business where there is a rapid turnover of staff.. Memories of incidents are likely to have faded. Some of the allegations appear to be dissatisfaction with the decision outcome than having any causal link with a protected act such as a decision to only partially uphold a grievance.

[39]It is clear from the Order of Regional Employment Judge Clark that there was no discussion of victimisation at the first Preliminary Hearing. At paragraph 5 Regional Employment Judge Clark says: “the claim is essentially about allegations of harassment, discrimination retaliation in respect of him raising his initial concerns about his working hours and deductions from pay”.

[40]It therefore seems to me that this is something of a recent development rather than an instance where the Claimant genuinely felt there was retaliation for doing a protected act.

[41]For those reasons the application to amend to include a complaint of victimisation is refused. It is not therefore necessary for me to consider striking out or a deposit order in relation to it. Complaints under the Working Time Regulations 1998

[42]All of the allegations are out of time save for those which relate to June 2024. There is no reason why the complaint could not have been presented in time. All of the allegations are therefore struck out other than the allegation about not being permitted rest breaks for one instance in June 2024. Whilst the preliminary hearing was not listed on a time point if the allegation is out of time then it has no reasonable prospect of success. Page 10 of 12 Unlawful deduction of wages

[43]The Claimant claims that there have been deductions from his wages for various shifts in the period from February to June 2024.

[44]I do not accept that this is a series of deductions. The alleged deductions are said to occur on different days each month and for different number of hours. They have all therefore been presented out of time save for June 2024.

[45]The extension provision under Section 111(2) ERA 1996 is whether it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. The Claimant has adduced no evidence to show it was not reasonably practicable to do so.

[46]All of the allegations of an unlawful deduction of wages are therefore struck out as having been presented out of time save for the single claim in June 2024 which is in time and shall be permitted to proceed. The ‘new’ allegations

[47]On 20 February 2026 the Claimant made an application to amend his claim between the dates of the Second Preliminary Hearing and the present hearing. The Claimant took the opportunity to add fresh allegations that had not been included in the list of issues included in the Order for the Second Preliminary Hearing.

[48]Some of the matters in the 20 February email are already included in the previous list of issues and are therefore duplicated. Some however are entirely new. I do not propose to list them all here.

[49]Insofar as they go beyond the earlier list of issues the application to amend to add those is refused. The reasons are as follows:49.1 The allegations are not clear. They would require further clarification through further and better particulars and perhaps another detailed Preliminary Hearing such as this, which itself has taken the best part of a day. All of that will entail considerable expenditure of time and costs which are entirely avoidable;

49.2 There is no reason why the Claimant could not have mentioned these matters earlier when he had the opportunity to do so. He cannot simply add to the case as he goes along;

49.3 To allow an amendment would significantly extend the final hearing and thereby causing hardship to the Respondent in terms of cost and inconvenience.

[50]Case management orders for the final hearing are given separately. Page 11 of 12 Approved by: