Mr Warburton v Openreach Ltd: 2413504/2020 and 2402297/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2024 |
| Date | 28 February 2024 |
| Citation | 2413504/2020 and 2402297/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 25 March 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Nos. 2413504/2020 & 2402297/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Warburton
Respondent: Openreach Limited
Heard at:
Manchester Employment
Tribunal
On: 18-27 September 2023
inclusive and 29 and 30
January 2024 (29 January
2024 in chambers)
Before:
Employment Judge Childe
Mr Dodd
Ms Gilchrist
JUDGMENT
REPRESENTATION:
Case Nos. 2413504/2020 & 2402297/2021
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr Sheehan (Counsel)
1. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent subjected him to harassment, as
defined in section 26 Equality Act 2010, is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent subjected him to direct disability
discrimination, as defined in section 13 Equality Act 2010 is not well founded
and is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent subjected him to discrimination
arising from disability, as defined in section 15 Equality Act 2010, is not well
founded and is dismissed.
4. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent failed to make reaso nable
adjustments, as defined in sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 is dismissed
on withdrawal.
5. The claimant’s complaint that he was subjected to victimisation by the
respondent, as defined in section 27 Equality Act 2010, is not well founded and
is dismissed.
6. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent made unauthorised deductions
from his wages is not well founded and is dismissed.
7. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent subjected him to a detriment, with
the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring him from taking part in the
activities of an independent trade union, as defined in section 146 Trade Union
and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, is not well founded and is
dismissed.
8. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent subjected him to a detriment done
on the ground that the claimant was a representative of workers on matters of
health and safety at work or a member of a safety committee, as defined in
Case Nos. 2413504/2020 & 2402297/2021
section 44 (a) (b) (ii) Employment Rights Act 1996, is not well founded and is
dismissed.
9. The claimant’s complaints brought under sections 47, 61 and 62 Employment
Rights Act 1996, are dismissed on withdrawal.
10. The claimant’s complaints brought under sections 168, 169 Trade Union and
Labour Relations (Consolidation) act 1992 are dismissed on withdrawal.
11. The claimant’s complaints brought under the Safety Representatives and
Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SI 1977/500) and Health and Safety
(Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1513)) are
dismissed on withdrawal.
To continue reading
Request your trial