In person For the v Respondent — 2020

At this preliminary hearing on 17 December 2019, the tribunal considered the Claimant's remaining time-limit issues for breach of contract / unauthorised deduction of wages, discrimination, direct discrimination and victimisation. It recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. The Claimant's original ET1 had been filed on 7 March 2019 after a 28 December 2018 dismissal, but it was rejected on 5 April 2019 because there was no ACAS early conciliation certificate; a certificate was then issued on 15 April 2019 and the defect was treated as rectified on 30 April 2019, leaving the claims 26 days out of time.

On the breach of contract side, the tribunal applied s.111(2) ERA 1996 and regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. It held that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present that claim in time, so it did not extend time for the claim concerning notice pay said to be four weeks rather than three. That claim was dismissed.

For the discrimination and victimisation claims, the tribunal considered s.123(1b) Equality Act 2010 and Robertson v Beckley Community Centre 2003. It found that the Claimant had acted under a genuine misunderstanding about the ACAS early conciliation requirement while acting in person, that he could have obtained the certificate quickly, and that he acted promptly once the defect was identified. In those circumstances, the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and allowed the discrimination/direct discrimination and victimisation claims to proceed to a full hearing. No monetary award was made in this judgment because only the time-limit issues were decided.