In person (with his TU representative Mr J Watson) For the v Respondent — 2023

The only claim before the tribunal was a claim of unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. The employment ended by dismissal on 18 July 2022, with the effective date of termination agreed as 18 July 2022. Early conciliation started on 27 September 2022 and ended on 29 September 2022. The tribunal found that the adjusted limitation date for presenting the ET1 was 29 October 2022, but the claim was not lodged until 8 November 2022.

The tribunal considered whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time under section 111 ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant had been dealing with his union, that a local representative had passed papers to the branch secretary by email, and that some emails went into the branch secretary’s junk folder. It also accepted that the claimant had contacted the union solicitors and had been told that the Acas process would extend time, but found that the claimant knew or should have known that the document he received on 29 September 2022 was the Acas Early Conciliation Certificate.

The tribunal found that the claimant was an articulate and apparently intelligent person, was able to use a computer, knew there were tribunal time limits in general, and had access to time limit information through the Acas website and his trade union. It held that it was reasonable to expect union officials to know tribunal time limits and to recognise an Acas certificate, but that the union’s failure to act properly did not make it not reasonably practicable for the claimant himself to have lodged the claim by the deadline. It noted that he was able to complete and submit the ET1 himself on 8 November 2022 once he revisited the certificate.

The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the ordinary time limit, and that the late presentation was not excused by the union’s failure or by the communication breakdown described in the evidence. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.