Vicky Jones v The College of St Barnabas — 2022

The claimant, Vicky Jones, was employed by The College of St Barnabas as a part-time Fundraising Assistant from 15 September 2013. The dispute arose from the respondent’s requirement, following the 2021 vaccination regulations for care homes, that staff be vaccinated or show proof of a valid medical exemption. The claimant raised concerns about vaccination, pursued a grievance referring to disability or health-condition discrimination, and attended meetings about the future of her employment.

The tribunal converted the listed final hearing into a preliminary hearing to decide whether the unfair dismissal claim was in time. It found that the respondent sent a dismissal email on 2 December 2021 attaching a letter dated 2 December 2021 stating that notice of termination was served and that the claimant’s last day of employment was 3 December 2021. However, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that this email was not received into her inbox and that she first saw the dismissal letter as an attachment to the respondent’s email of 17 December 2021, which she read on 23 December 2021. On that basis, the effective date of termination was 23 December 2021.

Having found an effective date of termination of 23 December 2021, the tribunal held that the claim was presented within the statutory time limit: the claimant contacted ACAS on 11 March 2022, received an early conciliation certificate on 18 March 2022, and presented her ET1 on 18 March 2022. The tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim and directed that it could proceed to a final hearing.

The tribunal also made an alternative finding that, if the effective date of termination had been 3 December 2021 as the respondent argued, the claim would have been out of time and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. That alternative conclusion rested on the claimant’s awareness of her right to claim, her access to union support and legal advice, and the tribunal’s view that her reasons for delay did not meet the section 111 test. The tribunal did not decide any discrimination complaint; instead, it made case management orders requiring the claimant to clarify whether she was pursuing disability discrimination and, if so, the nature of that claim.