Case 2413581/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bundu v Vodafone Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413581/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bundu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the complaints in light of time limits. The claimant confirmed complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and unauthorised deduction from wages relating to commission payments. The respondent agreed that the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint was presented in time and could proceed to a final hearing.
The effective date of termination and last alleged act of race discrimination was 17 April 2020. After ACAS early conciliation from 29 May 2020 to 26 June 2020, the unfair dismissal and race discrimination complaints should have been presented by 13 August 2020, but the claim was presented on 3 September 2020.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. It found that ACAS had not given the alleged advice that the time limit ran for three months from the certificate, that the claimant could have checked the position online, and that his mental health did not prevent timely presentation. For race discrimination, the Tribunal found that although the delay would not cause significant prejudice to the respondent, the reasons for delay did not justify extending time and it was not just and equitable to allow the claim to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction: the complaint was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction: the complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent agreed this complaint was presented in time and it could proceed to a final hearing; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Equality Act 2010
- early conciliation
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.