Mr Wayne Alcock v Department of Work and Pensions AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL — 2020

The claimant, Mr Wayne Alcock, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. This was a preliminary hearing about limitation. No oral evidence was taken because he had not complied with directions to provide a witness statement or the medical evidence on which he sought to rely. The tribunal noted that the claimant was an HR professional with experience in complex tribunal cases, and that the relevant statutory tests were section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 123(1) Equality Act 2010.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that dismissal took effect on 23 July 2019 and that the ordinary time limit expired on 22 October 2019, extended by ACAS early conciliation to 4 November 2019. The ET1 sent on 3 November 2019 was rejected because the claimant had not provided the ACAS certificate number. Although a duplicate certificate was later obtained and the claim was treated as validly received on 11 November 2019, that was seven days out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, including because the claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the correct time limit or the certificate number, and it struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.

For the disability discrimination allegations relating to events between 2014 and 2017, the tribunal found the claim was brought about two years after the last alleged act, which the claimant accepted had been resolved by transfer to a different post in November 2017. It was not persuaded that there was any continuing act of discrimination, and it rejected the claimant's reliance on continuing health effects as the same as a continuing discriminatory act. The tribunal concluded that the delay was substantial, inadequately explained, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were struck out.

The tribunal treated the dismissal-related disability discrimination allegation differently. Although the exact discrimination label remained unclear, it considered there was a possible claim because the respondent's response accepted that the totality of the claimant's absences over the previous 12 months had been taken into account. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's mistake about the ET1 and time limit was genuine, that the delay was only seven days, and that there was no discernible prejudice to the respondent. Time was therefore extended to 11 November 2019 and the claim was allowed to proceed only insofar as it related to termination of employment, with no comment on the merits.