Free ET3 Employer Response Template — Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.17 (UK)

ET3 Response to Employment Tribunal Claim (Rule 17, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024)

Manchester Employment Tribunal  ·  Claim 2406789/2026  ·  9 June 2026

To the Regional Employment Judge,

The Respondent, Northwest Logistics Solutions Ltd (Companies House number 08742199), presents this Response under rule 17 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (SI 2024/1155, in force 6 January 2025) to the claim presented by Daniel Chinanga (Claim reference 2406789/2026), a copy of which was sent to the Respondent on 22 May 2026. CRITICAL TIMING: the 28-day deadline under rule 17 expires on 19 June 2026 — this Response is presented within that period. The Respondent confirms it has had sight of the ET1 and supporting documents. ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate number is R987452/26 dated 10 April 2026 — ACAS EC under s.18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is mandatory pre-claim. The Respondent has attached the EC Certificate. The Respondent contests the claim as set out below, and reserves all rights including the right to apply for strike-out under rule 38, a deposit order under rule 40, and case management directions under rules 52-54 at any preliminary hearing.

Respondent: Northwest Logistics Solutions Ltd
Address: Heathrow House, Unit 12 Trafford Park, Manchester M17 1BD
Companies House number: 08742199
Contact name: Sarah Whitfield (Director of HR)
Telephone: 0161 942 0182
Email: sarah.whitfield@nwlogistics.co.uk
Representation: solicitor instructed
Representative name: Hannah Croft
Representative firm: Linkfield Employment Solicitors
Representative email: hannah.croft@linkfield.co.uk

Claimant: Daniel Chinanga
ET claim reference: 2406789/2026
Tribunal: Manchester Employment Tribunal
Tribunal address: Alexandra House, 14-22 The Parsonage, Manchester M3 2JA
Date copy of claim sent by Tribunal: 22 May 2026
28-day response deadline (rule 17): 19 June 2026
ACAS EC Certificate number: R987452/26
EC Certificate date: 10 April 2026

The Respondent confirms which heads of claim are contested:

   Unfair dismissal (ERA 1996 ss.94-98): CONTESTED
   Discrimination (EqA 2010): not contested / not pleaded
   Unauthorised deductions / wages (ERA 1996 s.23): not contested / not pleaded
   Redundancy / redundancy pay (ERA 1996 s.135): not contested / not pleaded
   TUPE (SI 2006/246): not contested / not pleaded
   Whistleblowing (ERA 1996 Part IVA + s.103A): not contested / not pleaded

Detail of claim types defended:
Unfair dismissal (ordinary, conduct-related) under ERA 1996 ss.94 and 98(2)(b). Claimant was dismissed on 28 March 2026 after a thorough disciplinary process arising from a confirmed breach of the Respondent's Drugs and Alcohol Policy following a positive workplace test on 15 February 2026. The Respondent denies all heads of claim and seeks dismissal of the claim in its entirety.

Resistance summary: (1) The dismissal was for a fair reason — conduct — under ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b) following a confirmed positive workplace drugs test. (2) The Respondent followed its Drugs and Alcohol Policy and a fair investigative procedure compliant with the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, including investigation interview, disciplinary hearing, right of representation, and right of appeal. (3) The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses test in Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 439, having regard to: (a) the safety-critical nature of the Claimant's LGV driving role; (b) the absolute zero-tolerance language of the published policy; (c) the absence of any persuasive mitigation. (4) The appeal was conducted fairly by an HR Director not previously involved. (5) The Respondent reserves Polkey position — even if any procedural defect is found, the dismissal would inevitably have followed. (6) Contributory fault is asserted at 100% on the conduct itself.

The Respondent sets out below detailed grounds of resistance to each claim type defended. The Respondent reserves the right to amend these grounds on application.

(A) UNFAIR DISMISSAL — ERA 1996 ss.94, 98. The Respondent relies on the fair reason: CONDUCT — ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b). The dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses test established in Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1982] IRLR 439 — the Tribunal asks whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, not whether the Tribunal itself would have dismissed. Polkey position (Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1987] UKHL 8 / [1988] AC 344): The Respondent contends a 100% Polkey deduction. Even if (which is denied) any procedural defect were found in the disciplinary process, the Respondent's Drugs and Alcohol Policy is published and zero-tolerance; the positive test result is uncontested by the Claimant; the role is safety-critical (LGV driving on public roads); the dismissal was the inevitable outcome on the conduct established. Per Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1987] UKHL 8, the percentage chance of dismissal regardless of any procedural defect is 100% in these specific facts.

Band of reasonable responses analysis: Per Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 439, the Tribunal asks whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The Respondent says yes: (a) the policy is published, signed by the Claimant on induction (2019), and reaffirmed on annual mandatory training; (b) the test was conducted by an accredited provider (Synergy Health) with proper chain-of-custody; (c) the disciplinary panel considered five mitigating circumstances raised by the Claimant (recent bereavement, medication interaction, sample contamination, third-party use, training error) — each was investigated and rejected on the evidence; (d) the role is safety-critical with statutory licensing implications; (e) no warnings of lesser sanctions were appropriate given the absolute language of the policy and the safety implications. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses; the Tribunal is invited not to substitute its own view of severity.

Grounds narrative:
The Respondent invites the Tribunal to determine the claim on the papers if possible (the Claimant's ET1 pleads no material disputed fact) and reserves the right to apply for strike-out under rule 38 ETPR 2024 once disclosure is complete. Any reference to "discrimination" in the ET1 is implausible — the Claimant has not identified any protected characteristic or comparator engaging EqA 2010.

(A) ACAS EARLY CONCILIATION (ETA 1996 s.18A). ACAS EC is mandatory pre-claim under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 since 6 April 2014. The EC period stops the clock on the s.111 / s.123 time limit. The Respondent's position on the EC Certificate: the ACAS EC Certificate appears valid on its face.

(B) TIME-BAR (ERA 1996 s.111 / EqA 2010 s.123 / ERA 1996 s.23). The Respondent's position on time-bar: the claim is IN TIME on the face of the ET1 (ACAS EC clock-stop accounted). For unfair dismissal under s.111(2), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction where it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. For discrimination under s.123, the Tribunal may extend time on the just-and-equitable basis — but the threshold is a high one and the Respondent does not concede an extension is appropriate.

(C) STRIKE-OUT — RULE 38 ETPR 2024. The Respondent reserves the right to apply for strike-out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The grounds available are: (i) no reasonable prospect of success; (ii) scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable conduct in the proceedings; (iii) not actively pursued; (iv) non-compliance with a Tribunal order; (v) impracticable to have a fair hearing. Strike-out grounds in this case: The Respondent reserves strike-out of any "discrimination" head under rule 38(1)(a) (no reasonable prospect of success) — the ET1 identifies no protected characteristic, no comparator, no relevant act of discrimination engaging EqA 2010. The only pleaded claim engaging the Tribunal's jurisdiction is unfair dismissal under ERA 1996 ss.94, 98.

(D) DEPOSIT ORDER — RULE 40 ETPR 2024. The Respondent reserves the right to apply for a deposit order under rule 40 — up to £1,000 per allegation having little reasonable prospect of success (total cap £8,000). Deposit order grounds in this case: If the discrimination head is not struck out, the Respondent will apply for a deposit order under rule 40 ETPR 2024 — up to £1,000 — on the discrimination allegation; the prospects of establishing a prima facie case under Madarassy [2007] EWCA Civ 33 are nil on the pleadings.

(E) RECONSIDERATION — RULES 68-71 ETPR 2024. The Respondent reserves the right to apply for reconsideration of any decision under rules 68-71 — necessary in the interests of justice — within 14 days of the decision.

Procedural narrative:
ACAS Early Conciliation appears valid on the face of the Certificate R987452/26 dated 10 April 2026. The Claimant presented the ET1 on 19 May 2026, within the s.111 ERA time limit (3 months less one day from EDT of 28 March 2026, account taken of the EC clock-stop). Time-bar is not contested.

(A) WITHOUT-PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS. The Respondent observes the without-prejudice rule per Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 — communications genuinely aimed at settlement are inadmissible in evidence. Protected conversations under ERA 1996 s.111A are inadmissible in ordinary unfair dismissal claims only. ACAS COT3 settlement is the binding outside-route compromise (no RIA required); a Settlement Agreement under ERA 1996 s.203 requires written form + signed + relevant independent adviser certified. On 25 April 2026 the Respondent's solicitor wrote to the Claimant's solicitor on a without-prejudice basis (Rush and Tompkins [1989] AC 1280) proposing a clean break settlement of £12,000 (notice pay + ex gratia + nominal contribution to legal fees) by ACAS COT3. The offer was declined on 28 April 2026. No further protected conversations under ERA 1996 s.111A are anticipated.

(B) COUNTER-SCHEDULE — BASIC AWARD (ERA 1996 s.119). The basic award is calculated by reference to age, length of service and week's gross pay (capped at £719 per week from 6 April 2026 — uprated annually). Claimant's age at EDT: 38. Continuous service: 6 years 9 months (rounded down to 6 complete years for basic award calculation). Week's gross pay capped at £719 (6 April 2026 statutory rate). Basic award = 6 weeks (under-41 multiplier 1.0 × 6 years) × £719 = £4,314. The Respondent contends £4,314 maximum, subject to any contributory fault deduction.

(C) COUNTER-SCHEDULE — COMPENSATORY AWARD (ERA 1996 s.123). The compensatory award compensates the just and equitable loss caused by the dismissal (past + future loss + loss of statutory rights + pension loss), subject to the statutory cap (52 weeks' pay or £115,115 — whichever is the lower, uprated annually under s.124(1ZA)). Past loss: from EDT 28 March 2026 to date of new employment 5 May 2026 = 5.4 weeks × £685 net = £3,699. Claimant's new role (security operative, Carlisle Logistics) pays £640 net per week — partial mitigation loss of £45/week. Future loss: 3 months (until new role progression) × £45 × 13 weeks = £585. Loss of statutory rights: £500. Pension loss: simplified method, 3% employer contribution × £685 net × 13 weeks future loss period = £267. Sub-total compensatory: £5,051. Subject to: Polkey deduction 100% (see (E)) — net compensatory award NIL. Subject to ACAS Code uplift NIL (no Code breach — ACAS-compliant disciplinary process followed).

(D) COUNTER-VENTO BAND (discrimination only). The Respondent's position on Vento bands (6 April 2026 Ninth Addendum RPI-uprated — Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871): NO Vento band engaged — no discrimination found / injury to feelings disputed.

(E) POLKEY DEDUCTION (Polkey v AE Dayton [1987] UKHL 8). The Respondent contends a Polkey deduction of 100% — the percentage chance the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been adopted.

(F) CONTRIBUTORY FAULT (ERA 1996 s.122(2) / s.123(6)). The Respondent contends a contributory-fault reduction of 100% for the Claimant's blameworthy conduct.

(G) MITIGATION (Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1202). The Claimant secured new employment with Carlisle Logistics on 5 May 2026 — 5.4 weeks after dismissal. The Respondent does not contend the Claimant failed to mitigate in principle. However, the Claimant's loss period is limited to 5.4 weeks of full loss + partial loss thereafter; the Respondent rejects any extended future-loss calculation. Per Chagger v Abbey National [2009] EWCA Civ 1202, the mitigation test is reasonableness — the Claimant's mitigation appears reasonable in this case.

Counter-schedule narrative:
On the Respondent's case the net award would be NIL (100% Polkey + 100% contributory fault on the conduct established). The Respondent invites the Tribunal to determine fairness and remedy together to avoid wasted hearing time.

(A) DISCLOSURE — RULE 33 ETPR 2024. Rule 33 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 requires the parties to disclose all relevant documents to each other ahead of the final hearing. The Respondent will provide a List of Documents and is prepared to give specific disclosure on application.

(B) WITNESS STATEMENTS. The Respondent's intended witnesses (subject to availability and case management directions): Witness 1: Mark Pendleton — Transport Manager — investigating officer, will speak to the policy, the test administration, chain-of-custody, and the investigation interview minutes. Witness 2: Joanne Ashworth — General Manager — dismissing officer at the disciplinary hearing, will speak to the disciplinary process, the panel deliberations, and the outcome reasoning. Witness 3: Sarah Whitfield — Director of HR — appeal hearing officer (not previously involved), will speak to the appeal process and outcome. (Optional Witness 4: Dr Imran Khan — Synergy Health — expert testimony on the test methodology and chain-of-custody if disputed at hearing.)

(C) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE — KEY DOCUMENTS. Key documentary evidence the Respondent intends to rely on: Key documents: (1) signed Contract of Employment dated 12 March 2019; (2) Drugs and Alcohol Policy v3.2 (signed acknowledgment on induction + annual reaffirmation 2020/21/22/23/24/25); (3) Synergy Health Test Result dated 15 February 2026 (positive cocaine metabolite); (4) chain-of-custody documentation; (5) Investigation Interview Minutes dated 22 February 2026; (6) Disciplinary Hearing Notice dated 8 March 2026; (7) Disciplinary Hearing Minutes dated 22 March 2026; (8) Dismissal Letter dated 28 March 2026; (9) Appeal Hearing Notice dated 4 April 2026; (10) Appeal Hearing Minutes dated 18 April 2026; (11) Appeal Outcome Letter dated 22 April 2026; (12) ACAS EC Certificate R987452/26 dated 10 April 2026.

(D) BUNDLE PREPARATION. The Respondent proposes a joint paginated bundle of approximately 220 pages, sequenced: A (pleadings 1-25), B (employment documents 26-60), C (investigation 61-110), D (disciplinary 111-160), E (appeal 161-200), F (correspondence 201-220). The Respondent proposes the joint bundle is exchanged 28 days before the final hearing per the standard case management directions, witness statements 14 days before, and Skeleton Arguments 7 days before. Hearing length estimate: 1 day for fairness; if remedy is required, additional half-day.

(E) PRACTICE DIRECTION COMPLIANCE. The Respondent will comply with the Presidential Practice Direction on Witness Statements and the Procedure Rules 2024 on case management. Witness statements will stand as evidence-in-chief.

Evidence narrative:
The Respondent will comply with rule 33 disclosure and the Presidential Practice Direction on Witness Statements. The Respondent reserves rule 33 ETPR 2024 application for specific disclosure if the Claimant fails to disclose the Synergy Health follow-up correspondence in his possession.

The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this Response are true. The Respondent understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.