Mr P Soanes in person For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr Soanes brought a claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 alleging that, while working as a Dock Supervisor at Peterborough Court, he had been denied rostered rest breaks during 12-hour shifts. The tribunal recorded that there were no rostered breaks for Dock Supervisors at the site and accepted the Claimant’s evidence that, from May 2015 to September 2019, he generally did not take breaks away from the dock supervisor office, apart from brief toilet use, occasional cigarette breaks, and the odd occasion when a colleague provided relief. It also accepted that he felt a personal responsibility to remain on site because of his role and that he did not regard Mr Gorodnichev as suitably qualified to cover him routinely.

The claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because it was presented out of time under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that, on the Claimant’s own evidence, the relevant last date complained of was around mid-September 2019, when the site was still occupied but later became largely vacant as Goldman Sachs left the building. On that basis, the tribunal calculated that the three-month time limit expired before the Claimant started ACAS early conciliation on 3 February 2020, and that the ET1 presented on 3 April 2020 was therefore out of time.

The tribunal then considered whether it had been "not reasonably practicable" for the Claimant to present the claim in time. It accepted that his ignorance of the right to bring a working time claim was reasonable until early January 2020, because such claims were less well-known than claims such as unfair dismissal or discrimination. However, it found that by 18 January 2020, when he wrote his grievance letter, it had become reasonably practicable for him to present a claim and to investigate the time limit promptly. The tribunal held that pursuing the Respondent’s grievance procedure did not itself make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim, so the regulation 30 escape clause did not apply. It therefore dismissed the claim without deciding the substantive break entitlement issues.