Office of Rail and Road and others
Decision Overview
Case Summary
The Claimant’s application for interim relief and the Respondents’ application to strike out the claims were both dismissed.
Claim Types
Key Issues
- •Claimant's application for interim relief
- •Respondents' application to strike out the claims
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
In deciding the unfair dismissal, the Tribunal will have to make a finding as to the sole or principal reason for dismissal (unlike discrimination where the protected characteristic need only be a material cause).
Also, to include a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments of amended duties but instead requiring the Claimant to perform the full duties of the role to which he was appointed.
That grievance makes no complaint of race discrimination, harassment or victimisation.
the earlier EAT Judgment in Al Qasimi, Eady J made it clear that where interim relief is sought in a whistleblowing case, the Claimant must show that it is likely that the claim will succeed on each of its constituent parts, ie that it is likely that the Tribunal will find (1) that there was a disclosure to the...
Decision Text
Case Numbers: 3204202/2022 and 3201367/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Ikeji Respondent: (1) Office of Rail and Road (2) Ian Prosser (3) Matthew Farrell (4) Victoria Rosolia (5) Donald Wilson Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 24 October 2022 Before: Employment Judge Russell Representation Claimant: Mr P O’Callaghan (Counsel) Respondent: Mr G Menzies (Counsel) JUDGMENT (1) The Claimant’s application for interim relief fails and is dismissed. (2) The Respondents’ application to strike out the claims fails and is dismissed. REASONS 1 By a claim form presented on 15 July 2022, the Claimant brings a complaint of unfair dismissal because of a protected disclosure and made an application for interim relief. The effective date of termination was 12 July 2022 and so the application was presented in time. 2 The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 5 January 2022 as a Trainee Inspector. From early in the employment, a number of disputes arose. The first was whether the Claimant should have been appointed to the Trainee Inspector position at Transport for London rather than the allocated role at Network Rail southern region. There then arose a dispute about the Claimant’s training needs assessment. I do not need to go into any further detail for the purposes of deciding this application. Case Numbers: 3204202/2022 and 3201367/2022 2 3 The Claimant and his line manager, Mr Wilson, met on 3 March 2022 and discussed, amongst other things, the Claimant’s desire to work part-time. It is clear from contemporaneous emails sent by the Claimant and Mr Wilson that the latter’s reaction was not favourable. Whilst the Claimant had not made a formal application, Mr Wilson said that if he did, the likely response would be...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- Mr A Ikeji
- Case Number
- 3204202/2022
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 17 April 2024
- Published
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell