In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that Mr Potts had a reasonable opportunity to read the dismissal letter on 14 June 2019, even though he said he did not actually read it until 17 June 2019. The envelope was postmarked 12 June 2019, but the judge accepted that service had been effected by 14 June 2019 for limitation purposes. The contractual one-month notice clause did not assist him because he had not signed the contract, so his notice entitlement was treated as statutory.

On that basis, ACAS early conciliation on 9 September 2019 left him until 10 October 2019 to present the second claim. He did not lodge the ET1 until 16 October 2019, so the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages complaints were six days out of time. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to comply with the deadline and did not extend time, so those complaints were struck out.

For the disability claims, the tribunal assumed for limitation purposes that Mr Potts had a mental and physical impairment amounting to disability, but it did not decide disability status. The reasonable adjustments complaint concerned an alleged requirement to lift heavy items on 22/23 January 2019; the tribunal held that this was not a continuing act, that it had already been known when the first claim was brought, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The direct discrimination allegations linked to wage deductions and dismissal were also out of time, and the tribunal found there was no sufficient link to disability. Had time been extended, the dismissal discrimination complaint would in any event have had no reasonable prospect of success.