Judge strikes out former Vinci employee’s whistleblowing case

A former Vinci employee has had her case for unfair dismissal over whistleblowing thrown out by an employment tribunal.

Renata Stochmal was employed by Vinci Construction Terrassement, a subsidiary of Vinci Construction, as a surface water and flood risk discipline lead from 27 January 2022 to 5 August 2022.

She claimed she had “no option” but to resign over alleged “serious errors” by her employer relating to the “illegal alteration of documents” which she had referred to her line manager, a tribunal heard.

She took the firm to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal but her case has been struck out due to the delay in filing the claim.

Stochmal waited 13 months to submit her claim – 10 months after the three-month deadline had passed.

“The claimant presented a claim with Midlands West Employment Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal (based on protected disclosures) and ordinary unfair dismissal,” employment judge Anne-Marie Boyle said.

“The claim for automatic unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. This claim is therefore dismissed.”

The judge also dismissed Stochmal’s claim for ordinary unfair dismissal because she had not been employed for at least two years and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.

The judge said short time limits were important in tribunals to ensure employers are not forced to defend historic claims.

The tribunal heard Stochmal also wanted to bring a claim for discrimination but the judge rejected this as she had failed to tick the correct box.

“She referred to the passage in her particulars which states: ‘My line manager’s decision, his disrespect for my work, his pressure on me, the corporate culture, the serious violation of the employment contract forced me to resign’,” the judge said.

“The claimant did not tick boxes under 8.1 regarding discrimination but did tick the box above for unfair dismissal and the box below to indicate that she was making ‘another claim’.

“When pressed by me, the claimant said that maybe she missed the discrimination box because she was rushed. I do not find this particularly credible as she clearly read the whole page and ticked boxes above and below the discrimination section.”