Mr R Mohanan v Avery of Leicester (Operations) Ltd: 2601302/2020
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2601302/2020 |
| Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Published date | 02 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case No: 2601302/2020
Page 1 of 71
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr R. Mohanan
Respondent: Avery of Leicester (Operations) Limited
Heard at: Midlands East
On: 11,12,13,14,15 October 2021 and 9, 10 & 15 November 2021
and deliberations 19 November 2021.
Before: Employment Judge Rachel Broughton
sitting with Members; Mrs K Srivastava and Mr M Alibhai.
Representatives
Claimant: In Person
Respondent: Ms Hale – solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT WITH
REASONS
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The application to strike out the claim is not well founded and is refused.
2. The Claimant does not have the necessary qualifying service pursuant to
section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) to bring a claim of
ordinary unfair dismissal pursuant to section 94 and 98 ERA and that claim
is therefore not well founded and is dismissed.
3. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA is not
well founded and is dismissed.
4. The claims of harassment and direct discrimination on the grounds of
religion and/or belief and/or age discrimination are not well founded and
are dismissed.
5. The claim for wrongful dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed.
6. The Claimant’s claim for unpaid holiday for the holiday year 2019 is not well
founded and is dismissed.
7. The claim for unpaid holiday for the holiday year 2020 is well founded and
Case No: 2601302/2020
Page 2 of 71
succeeds and the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of
£254.80 (gross).
8. The claim for unlawful deduction of wages in connection with the period
when the Claimant was on suspension is in part, well founded and
succeeds and the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum
£245.70 (gross).
9. The claim for unlawful deductions for unpaid wages for the period 17th to
19 February 2020 is £40.40 (gross).
10. The claim for unlawful deduction of wages for overtime worked on public
holidays in 2019 is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
11. The Claimant is liable for any statutory deductions if any, payable on the
gross sums awarded.
The Issues
1. The parties had been ordered but had not prepared a list of issues. The
Employment Tribunal Judge therefore spent time on the morning of the hearing
discussing the claims and the issues. The Claimant was unrepresented and was
assisted throughout the hearing by an interpreter.
2. The Judge prepared a provisional list of issues on the morning of the hearing and
provided those to the parties to consider. After some discussion with the parties,
those issues were amended. The Claimant identified on the first day of the hearing,,
that the protected disclosures he alleges he made to Yvonne Jacobs, are set out in
the documents at pages 99 / 101 and 122 in the bundle however, when the Judge
looked at those documents with the Claimant, he then reconsidered his case and
informed the Tribunal that the information contained in the documents at pages 101
and 122 were not protected disclosures but just complaints and hence he was
withdrawing his allegation that these documents amounted to protected disclosures
under section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). The list of issues was
accordingly amended by agreement to reflect this.
3. The Judge prepared and presented a typed copy of the amended list of issues
and claims to the parties on the morning of the second day of the hearing. The
Claimant requested further time to go through the written list of issues with the
interpreter, after an hour he indicated that he was in a position to proceed and
confirmed that he did not want to make any changes to the issues as set out.
4. The issues which were agreed were as follows;
1. Time limits
1.1 Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation,
any complaint about something that happened before 14 December 2019 may
not have been brought in time.
A) Discrimination and harassment claims
Case No: 2601302/2020
Page 3 of 71
1.2 Were the discrimination and harassment complaints made within the time limit
in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010?
The Tribunal will decide:
1.2.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early
conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?
1.2.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?
1.2.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus
early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?
1.2.4 If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal
thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:
a) Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time?
b) In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances
to extend time.
B) Unauthorised deductions claim: section 13 ERA
Unauthorised deductions was the complaint presented within the time
limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
The Tribunal will decide:
1.2.5 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early
conciliation extension) of the date of payment of the wages from which
the deduction was made etc?
1.2.6 Unauthorised deductions If not, was there a series of deductions and
was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early
conciliation extension) of the last one?
1.2.7 If not, was it reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the
Tribunal within the time limit?
1.2.8 If it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the
Tribunal within the time limit, was it made within a reasonable period?
To continue reading
Request your trial