Case 2402433/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Bannister v PeoplePlus Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402433/2019
- Decision date
- 9 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Bannister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Bannister worked as a Job Coach for Peopleplus Group Limited from 1 June 2010 until 14 September 2018. She informed the respondent that she was pregnant in March or April 2018. In September 2018 the claimant's team was made redundant, leaving her to service the contract alone. On 14 September 2018 her voluntary redundancy was confirmed, together with a statutory redundancy payment of £7,000 and payment in lieu of notice of about £1,822. The judgment records hospital admissions in late September and October 2018, the birth of her daughter on 27 October 2018, and a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis on 9 November 2018.
On the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the claim was not presented within the primary three-month limit expiring on 13 December 2018, but that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to lodge it within time because of the pregnancy, the birth, and the medical difficulties involving her daughter. The tribunal nevertheless found that once the claimant learned on 15 February 2019 that the claim was out of time, and then received the ACAS certificate on 19 February 2019, she could have submitted the brief claim form then. Because she did not submit the claim until 12 March 2019, it was not brought within a reasonable further period and was dismissed.
On the pregnancy and/or maternity discrimination complaint under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the primary time limit had also expired on 13 December 2018. It nonetheless exercised its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis to 12 March 2019. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about the pressures of caring for her daughter after the cystic fibrosis diagnosis, the difficulty she had in formulating the claim, and the absence of material prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal noted that the witness issue relied on by the respondent would have arisen even if the claim had been brought in time, and it directed that the discrimination claim should proceed to the final hearing listed for 4, 5 and 6 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim was held out of time under section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months, but it was not brought within a reasonable further period after the claimant received the ACAS certificate on 19 February 2019. The judgment contains an apparent typo in the introductory chronology about the start of early conciliation; later findings record 15 February 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim was out of time under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable to 12 March 2019. The merits were listed to be heard at the final hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Trusthouse Forte (UK) Ltd v Halstead
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.