In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr Selley served as a police officer for 30 years and retired on 21 February 2018. He brought an unfair constructive dismissal claim and disability discrimination claims arising from an investigation and subsequent workplace treatment. The tribunal recorded that the disability case was limited to allegations of harassment and failures to make reasonable adjustments, and that an occupational health physician had found him disabled in July 2016 by reason of sleep apnoea, neck pain and adjustment disorder/anxiety.

For the unfair constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 21 February 2018 and that the three-month limitation period expired on 20 May 2018. ACAS early conciliation was not started until 26 March 2019, almost a year after that deadline. The claimant said he delayed because he was advised that the investigation was ongoing and because of a fear of retaliation, but the tribunal preferred the contemporaneous email evidence and found that his advisers had in fact discussed issuing proceedings in time to protect against limitation problems.

The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair constructive dismissal claim to have been presented in time, that there was no sufficient basis for any extension, and that the later January 2019 decision that there was no case to answer did not create a new cause of action or materially different circumstances. It also held that, under s.200(1) ERA 1996, it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the police-service exclusion applied and the claim was not one of the statutory exceptions.

The disability discrimination claims were also dismissed as out of time. Applying the just and equitable test, the tribunal considered the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the likely effect on the cogency of the evidence, the parties' conduct, the promptness of the claimant's response, and the professional advice available to him. It found that the claimant knew the relevant facts when he retired, had access to advisers, was not prevented by ill-health or ignorance of the time limits, and had still delayed after the January 2019 decision. The tribunal concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and dismissed those claims.