Mr Y. Chandel v Autoneum GB Limited — 2022

Mr Chandel was employed by Autoneum GB Limited as an engineer from 23 October 2017 until his redundancy dismissal on 25 November 2020. He brought complaints of unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. The tribunal held that both claims were presented out of time. It found that the unfair dismissal claim should have been presented by 24 February 2021 and that the claimant did not contact Acas within that period, so he did not obtain any extension under the early conciliation provisions.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities cited on the reasonably practicable test, including Abertawe Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan and Wall's Meat Company Limited v Khan. It found the operative impediment was the claimant's misunderstanding of how the time limit was calculated. The tribunal accepted he was not a lawyer and had access to the internet, but held that the error could and reasonably should have been avoided, given the information available on the Acas website and the time available to research the position between the redundancy process, the dismissal, and the appeal outcome.

On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable extension discretion, referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link, Adedeji v Uni Hospitals Bhm NHS Trust, and Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch. It accepted that the claimant made a genuine mistake about the limitation date, but found the mistake was not reasonable. The tribunal attached weight to the fact that the underlying events began in June 2020, that there was time to research the position earlier, and that there was no good reason to wait until the end of the one-month period after the Acas certificate before presenting the claim.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's Acas notification was one day outside the three-month less one day limitation period, and it recorded that the claim was therefore in fact just over two months out of time when presented on 26 April 2021. It concluded that, on balance, it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaint. All claims in the case were therefore dismissed.