In person v Respondent — 2019

At a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 19 August 2019, Employment Judge O'Neill considered limitation issues only. The claimant had worked as a public protection clerical officer on 28 hours per week and, before resigning on 20 November 2018 with an effective date of termination of 19 December 2018, she had asked to work from a station nearer home and on a rota aligned with her husband's shifts. She did not raise a grievance and did not seek legal advice until the end of May 2019; her ET claim was presented on 27 June 2019, after the tribunal said it should have been presented by 17 March 2019 at the latest.

The tribunal found that the claimant was bright, literate, computer-literate, and aware of her rights and contractual position, and that she had the competence and capacity to bring the unfair dismissal and flexible working claims within the primary three-month period. It rejected her explanation that ignorance of the law and preoccupation with the children made it not reasonably practicable to present those claims in time. Those claims were therefore dismissed as time-barred, and the tribunal made no substantive merits finding on the dismissal or flexible working issues.

On the discrimination complaints, the tribunal said the claimant was unclear what her pregnancy/maternity claim was based on and had never complained about her treatment after the birth of either child. It accepted that the respondent had made some efforts to accommodate her, including the possibility of a move to Wakefield and a job share if she could propose a more workable rota, but found that her proposed rota was the only one she said she could work and that this was tied to her husband's shift pattern. The tribunal concluded that the difficulty was not a PCP of general application, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for either discrimination claim, so both were dismissed as time-barred. No further case management orders were made.