in person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal held that the claimant’s dismissal was on 16 May 2018 and that the ordinary three-month limitation period for the unfair dismissal claim expired on 15 August 2018. The claimant entered ACAS early conciliation on 15 August 2018 and the certificate was issued on 30 August 2018; taking the calculations into account, the tribunal found the limitation period expired on 30 September 2018. The claim was presented on 8 October 2018, so both claims were out of time.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the statutory test in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities cited on the meaning of “not reasonably practicable”, including Porter v Bandridge, Dedman, Walls Meat, Palmer & Saunders, and Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan. The claimant said he had been supported by a Unison shop steward at the dismissal hearing, had later been told by Unison that they were not supporting his case, and had then sought advice from Unite and ACAS. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged union involvement explained the delay, and noted that the claimant had provided no evidence as to why the claim was not lodged between 30 August and 30 September 2018. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal applied section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and considered the just and equitable discretion, referring to the Harvey factors set out in the reasons. It found that the claimant had sought advice from ACAS and received a certificate on 30 August 2018, but had not explained why he failed to comply with the guidance or why there was delay until 8 October 2018. The tribunal said the claimant had plainly misunderstood the role of ACAS and that, in the absence of any reason for the claim not being lodged within time, there was no basis to exercise discretion. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.