Case 2402102/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Konjusinskis v Kepak Kirkham Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402102/2021
- Decision date
- 10 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Konjusinskis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Konjusinskis was employed by Kepak Kirkham Limited from 26 February 2007 and was dismissed for gross misconduct on 11 August 2020. He appealed unsuccessfully and then started ACAS early conciliation on 9 November 2020. The tribunal held that, because the ACAS certificate was received on 9 December 2020, section 207B ERA 1996 extended the limitation period so that the relevant deadline became 9 January 2021.
The claimant submitted his Employment Tribunal claim on 23 February 2021, so both the section 103A dismissal claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim were out of time. The tribunal rejected the argument that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present the claims within time, finding that he had access to trade union advice, had obtained legal advice through the union, had contact with ACAS, understood enough English to prepare a lengthy appeal and attend hearings, and was able to work during the relevant period.
The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's ignorance of the time limit was reasonable. It held that he could have researched the position and lodged the claim by 9 January 2021, so the claims were dismissed. The tribunal also considered an alternative breach of contract claim in relation to alleged unpaid wages from 2018 and 2019, treating it as a claim for damages outstanding on termination under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and dismissed that claim as well.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim pleaded as unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal held it was presented out of time after applying the ACAS early conciliation extension and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim about alleged unpaid wages at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019. The tribunal held it was out of time under section 23 ERA 1996 and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Alternative claim for unpaid wages/damages on termination under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal dismissed it as out of time and because it was reasonably practicable to bring it within the prescribed period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.207B(2)-(4) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable further period
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Locke v Tabfine Ltd t/a Hands Music Centre
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.