Mr H S Uppal v RDCP Care Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr H S Uppal, worked for RDCP Care Limited from 19 July 2004 as a maintenance worker. After a disciplinary hearing on 30 July 2019, he attended an outcome meeting on 3 January 2020 at which he was told that the allegations had been upheld, that this constituted gross misconduct, and that he would be leaving the employment. The tribunal found that those words were unambiguous and that the effective date of termination was 3 January 2020. A letter dated 6 January 2020, received on 10 January 2020, confirmed dismissal with immediate effect and gave a right of appeal.

The claimant appealed and attended an appeal meeting on 26 February 2020. The respondent said it sent an appeal outcome letter dated 2 March 2020 dismissing the appeal, but the tribunal found that although the letter was sent, it was not received by the claimant. The claimant later chased the appeal outcome, received a response on 26 May 2020 enclosing the original dismissal letter, and presented his tribunal claim on 11 June 2020 after early conciliation had begun on 31 May 2020 and ended on 1 June 2020.

Applying section 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time by 8 weeks and 3 days. It accepted that the claimant genuinely believed he remained employed pending the appeal, but did not find that belief objectively reasonable because he had been told orally and in writing that he was dismissed, had not been working, and had not received wages after 3 January 2020. The tribunal also noted that he had contacted ACAS and the Job Centre early on and had access to the internet, so it was reasonably practicable for him to investigate the position and present the claim in time.

Because it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit, the tribunal did not need to decide whether the claim was brought within a further reasonable period. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed on jurisdictional time-limit grounds, and no remedy was awarded.