Case 1305745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Mackie v Cheshire East Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305745/2020
- Decision date
- 29 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Mackie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Mackie had been employed by Cheshire East Council since 6 June 2006 as a Civil Enforcement Parking Officer. After management instructions were issued in November 2018 and July 2019, he raised a grievance on 12 October 2019. He emailed his resignation on 4 November 2019, later sought to retract it, and the respondent treated his last day of employment as 30 November 2019.
The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 30 November 2019. On that basis, the three-month time limit under section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996 expired on 29 February 2020. The claim was not issued until 6 May 2020, so it was out of time.
The tribunal rejected the argument that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It found that the claimant had support from his trade union and had received a letter from Union Line on 19 February 2020 explaining that he needed to start early conciliation and present any claim by 29 February 2020. Although he said he found the letter difficult to understand, the tribunal was not satisfied that he had a learning disability, and it relied on a prior assessment which recorded capacity to litigate and instruct. The tribunal also found that the claimant and his mother made a conscious decision to wait for the grievance outcome rather than act on the advice he had received.
Even if it had been wrong about reasonable practicability, the tribunal held that the claimant waited too long after the grievance outcome was issued on 22 April 2020 and after early conciliation started on 4 May 2020. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant presented the claim as constructive unfair dismissal, but the preliminary hearing only determined the time-limit and jurisdiction issue and did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Bodhu v Hampshire Area Health Authority [1982] ICR 200
- Palmer and another v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.