In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Ms C Hedd presented her claim on 7 July 2020 after her employment with Tesco Stores Ltd had ended on 3 February 2020. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. It also recorded that disability was conceded by the respondent in relation to the claimant’s knee condition, and that the redundancy payment claim was within time and could proceed.

On the time-limit evidence, the claimant said she first took ACAS advice on 9 June 2019, raised a grievance around 17 June 2019, and was told by ACAS on 5 May 2020 that she could proceed with a claim once the grievance process had finished. The grievance outcome was given on 5 May 2020, the effective date of termination was 3 February 2020, Early Conciliation ran from 12 May 2020 to 11 June 2020, and the claim was not presented until 7 July 2020. The tribunal accepted that she did not know the time limit until she received the ET3 and that she relied on ACAS advice to complete the grievance first.

Applying the reasonably practicable test under section 111 ERA 1996, and the same approach to unlawful deductions and holiday pay, the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present those claims within the primary time limit because she relied on the ACAS advice she had been given. However, once she knew she could bring a claim, the tribunal held she did not present it within such further period as was reasonable. It found that, even allowing for her difficulties, she should have presented the claims by 18 June 2020, shortly after Early Conciliation ended.

For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under section 123 Equality Act 2010. It found the delay was about two months, that this was not a long delay, that documentary evidence from Occupational Health, return-to-work meetings and the grievance process was likely to remain available, and that the respondent had not identified concrete prejudice beyond the need to defend the claim. The tribunal therefore extended time and directed that the discrimination claim proceed to a full merits hearing. The redundancy payment claim was treated as within time and also proceeded, with a further preliminary hearing for case management to be listed.