Mr R Bartosik v Uber Scot Ltd: 4110018/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Published date | 27 September 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4110018/2021 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
ETZ4(WR)
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH
5
Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case Number 4110018/2021 heard
at Edinburgh on 7 & 8 July 2022
Employment Judge d’Inverno
10
Mr R Bartosik Claimant
In Person
15
Uber Scot Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Ms K Davies of
Counsel
20
instructed by
Ms A L Thomond,
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is:-
(First) That the respondent has failed in its duties under s.1 and s.3 of the
30
Employment Rights Act 1996 and in particular its duties under:-
s.1(3)(a) – Name of the Company and the Worker
s.1(4)(d)(ii)(a) – Any Terms and Conditions relating to Any Other
Paid Leave
35
s.1(4)(ga) – Probationary Period
s.1(4)(j) – Collective Agreements affecting Terms and Conditions
4110018/2021 Page 2
s.1(4)(m) – Any Training Provided By The Employer Which The
Worker Is Required To Complete
s.1(4)(n) – Any Other Training Which The Worker Required To
Complete But Was Not Paid For By The Employer
s.3 – Note on Disciplinary Procedure
5
(Second) That otherwise, the respondent has complied with its obligations
under s.1 and 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(Third) The terms which existed between the parties and which should have
10
been included in a s.1 written Statement of Particulars of Employment and
which, in terms of s.12(1) of the ERA 1996 are hereby deemed to have
been given to the claimant by the respondent, are those recorded at
paragraphs (52) to paragraph (81) of the Findings in Fact attached to this
Judgment, which paragraphs are referred to for their terms and are held
15
incorporated herein, for the purposes of brevity.
(Fourth) The claimant not having presented any claim other than one under
s.1 of the ERA, is not entitled to a financial remedy.
20
Employment Judge: Joseph d’Inverno
Date of Judgment: 02 September 2022
Entered in register: 02 September 2022
and copied to parties
25
I confirm that this is my Judgment in the case of Bartosik v Uber Scot
Limited and that I have signed the Judgment by electronic signature.
NOTE
30
1. This case called for Final Hearing at Edinburgh, in conventional In Person
form, on 7th and 8th July 2022. The claimant appeared in person. The
Respondent Company was represented by Ms Davies of Counsel instructed
by Ms Thomond, Solicitor.
35
4110018/2021 Page 3
Preliminary Matter
2. On 4th July 2022 the respondent’s law agents sent to the claimant and to the
Tribunal two documents being:-
5
(a) a bundle of authorities to be referred to by the respondents at
the Hearing; and
(b) “Respondent’s Skeleton Argument for the Final Hearing 7-8 July
2022”.
10
3. By email dated 4th July 2022 the claimant made application, in terms of Rule
30 for an Order “Striking Out” both documents in reliance upon Rule 42, on
the grounds that they had not been delivered to the Tribunal and to all other
parties “not less than 7 days before the Hearing”.
15
4. Rule 42 is in the following terms:-
“42 Written representations
The Tribunal shall consider any written representations from a party,
20
including a party who does not propose to attend the hearing, if they are
delivered to the Tribunal and to all parties not less than 7 days before the
hearing.”
5. By way of preliminary, the tribunal heard parties respectively in support of
25
and in opposition to the application. Having heard parties the Tribunal:-
(a) determined that the bundle of authorities, not being written
representations bur rather copies of case decisions containing
potentially applicable law, did not fall within the terms of Rule
30
42,
(b) refused the application and,
(c) allowed the bundle of authorities to be received.
35
To continue reading
Request your trial