Mr A Singh v Harrods Ltd 2203747/2022

Case Number: 2203747/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Mr A Singh Respondent v Heard at: London Central (By CVP) Harrods Ltd On: 21 October 2022 Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation For the Claimant In person For the Respondents: Ms A Greenley, Counsel JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the tribunal is that: 1. the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to Rules 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(c) or alternatively for a deposit order under Rule 39 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 is dismissed. The claimant’s clam for unfair constructive dismissal shall be considered at a Final Hearing and a 2-hour Preliminary Hearing for case management purposes be listed before an Employment Judge -1- Case Number: 2203747/2022 sitting alone by Cloud Video Platform on the first open date after 30 November 2022. 2. the claimant’s claim of religion or belief discrimination submitted on 03 June 2022 was presented outside the time limit set down in s123 of the Equality Act 2010. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim and it is dismissed. 3. The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages (in relation to a 2% pay increase in 2019) submitted on 03 June 2022 is struck out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it has no reasonable prospect of success. 4. The claimant’s claim for breach of contract (in relation to an alleged nonpayment of an enhanced pension) submitted on 03 June 2022 is struck out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it has no reasonable prospect of success. REASONS Introduction 1. By an ET1 Form dated 03 June 2022 the claimant presented a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, religion or belief discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages (in relation to a 2% salary increase in 2019), and breach of contract (in relation to an alleged non-payment of an enhanced pension), which the respondent denied. 2. An Open Preliminary Hearing took place on 21 October 2022. This was a hearing held by CVP video hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the ET Rules”). I was satisfied that the parties were content to -2- Case Number: 2203747/2022 proceed with a CVP hearing, that it was just and equitable in all the circumstances, and that the participants in the hearing were able to see and hear the proceedings. 3. The parties prepared and filed a Joint Bundle of documents in advance of the hearing consisting of 67 pages, to which reference was made. 4. At an earlier Preliminary Hearing on 19 August 2022 before Employment Judge Grewal this Preliminary Hearing was listed to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s discrimination complaint and any strike out or deposit order application made by the respondent. 5. At the outset of this hearing the parties were advised that the Tribunal would investigate and record the following issues as falling to be determined, both parties being in agreement with these: (a) Any application to strike out any of the claims or for a deposit order made by the respondent: and (b) Whether any of the discrimination claims were presented in time; (c) If not, whether it would be just and equitable to consider them; (d) If some were presented in time, whether those that were not are capable of amounting to an act extending over a period ending with the claims that were presented in time; (e) If they are not capable of amounting to such a continuing act, whether it would be just and equitable to consider them. 6. The respondent’s application dated 30 September 2022 sought an order to strike out the claimant’s claims or alternatively a deposit order in the amount of £1000.00. The respondent asserts that the religion or belief discrimination claim was not presented within 3 months of the acts and omissions complained of. Furthermore the respondent contends that the constructive unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contact claims have no reasonable prospect of success (Rule 37(1)(a) of the ET Rules), or that the claimant had failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal (Rule 37(1)(c) of the ET Rules). The respondent’s representative asserts the claimant failed to properly plead his claims, that he had not provided key details relating to his constructive unfair -3- Case Number: 2203747/2022 dismissal claim, and that he is in breach of the Tribunal’s order of 19 August 2022. The claimant did not send any written reply to the application. 7. Both parties made oral submissions. The respondent’s representative provided a Skeleton Argument, to which reference was made. Claims and Issues 8. In the ET1 Form the claimant had ticked the relevant boxes to indicate that he is bringing a claim for unfair dismissal (including constructive), religion or belief discrimination, arrears of pay and other payments, and he attached a Word document to his ET1 Form providing some further information. The claimant confirmed during this hearing that in addition to his constructive unfair dismissal claim, he pursued claims in respect of religion or belief discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages (in relation to his 2% salary increase), and breach of contract (in relation to an alleged non-payment of an enhanced pension). 9. He also asserted that he claimed a statutory redundancy payment. However the claimant did not tick the relevant box or provide details of this claim in his ET1 Form. In any event he accepted that he was not dismissed due to redundancy. Therefore there was no claim for a statutory redundancy payment before the Tribunal. 10. The respondent’s representative confirmed that the respondent did not assert that the constructive unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit. 11. There was no list of issues in relation to the claimant’s claims. The claimant provided the following further information about his claims during this hearing: 11.1 The claimant confirmed that his religion or belief claim was set out in paragraph 1 of the additional document attached to his ET1 Form. He said -4- Case Number: 2203747/2022 that there was one instance of discrimination, but that this conduct had occurred since the start of his employment. He said that all the managers concerned were no longer employed by the respondent (apart from the last manager referred to at paragraph 1). 11.2 He also said that the comment at paragraph 1 was made to him in 2016. This was why he left his department in 2016 and joined another department in the business. He raised the fact that the comment was raised with Mr S Delmo on the same day it was made to him. There were no further comments of the same or similar nature made to him after 2016. There were no other specific references to religion or belief discrimination in his claim. The remainder of the events he describes in his claim related to general unreasonable treatment he says he suffered. 11. 3 The claimant averred that a 2% pay increase was awarded to him in relation to the role he undertook in June 2019 (this was given to him after 23 months of joining). He joined Distribution on 24 June 2019, but the pay increase was awarded a month or two after. He says that his employment contract provides that there will be an annual pay review, but this did not state how much any pay review would be. The pay review is normally negotiated by his trade union representatives and all employees would receive the agreed pay increase. A 2% pay increase was agreed in respect of 2019. It is the claimant’s case that he did not receive the 2% pay increase in 2019. 11.4 In relation to his claim for enhanced pension contributions, the claimant contends that his Store Services Contract states that he is eligible to an enhanced pension. He received the contract three months after he joined the new department on around 09 February 2017 (he says he should have received this on 11 October 2016). However by that time the three months window within which he had to apply for the enhanced pension had closed. He was not aware of either his entitlement or the 3-month timescale to apply as the relevant contractual document was not given to him in time. There were email correspondences between the parties up to 15 February 2017 in relation to this issue. 11.5 In relation to his constructive unfair dismissal claim, the claimant confirmed that he relied on the respondent's alleged breach of the duty of -5- Case Number: 2203747/2022 trust and confidence. The first incident he relies on in respect of this claim took place on 14 August 2020 which was the date the respondent held a redundancy consultation meeting (see paragraph 6 of his details of claim at page 14 of the Hearing Bundle). The claimant confirmed that the matters in paragraphs 1 to 5 are included as background information only and do not form part of his constructive dismissal complaint. 11.6 The claimant also advised that he is relying on all the events he describes from paragraphs 6 to 9 as forming part of his constructive dismissal complaint. 11.7 He complains that the respondent gave his colleague a manager role in around December 2020 in another department and they neglected him. He said he was one of the eligible candidates for that role and he was not given an interview. The job was almost given to his colleague and there was no opportunity for the claimant to compete for the role. The claimant says he was also given shifts that were not assigned to anybody else. Once his colleague departed (although this occurred since June 2019 it became worse from December...