Case 2415147/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Rauf v FGH Security Services Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2415147/2018
Decision date: 1 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wardle Representation
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Rauf

Respondent

FGH Security Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr R Rauf complained of constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal recorded that he had transferred to FGH Security Services Limited in March 2010 under TUPE, moved to a different site in August 2017 after the respondent lost the TNT Ramsbottom contract, and objected to the further transfer in November 2017 because the new site offered fewer hours and was less convenient to travel to. The respondent then retained him as a cover guard on an ad hoc basis, he later returned from holiday in December 2017, and he resigned in early April 2018 with an effective date of termination of 6 April 2018.

The tribunal held that the constructive dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay complaints were subject to the three-month time limit and that, after ACAS early conciliation, the primary deadline was 23 July 2018. The ET1 was not effectively presented until 3 October 2018. Applying the reasonably practicable test, and referring to Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser, and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claims in time. It rejected his explanation that he did not know the time limits applied, noting that he had used ACAS early conciliation, had access to online information, and had help from a lawyer friend.

As a result, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the constructive dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay claims. It did not make any monetary award. The judgment noted that the claimant's inability to ensure the form was posted with correct postage, rather than any qualifying impediment, explained the delay.

On the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal held that the six-month time limit had not been exceeded and that the claim was therefore within jurisdiction. It nevertheless identified difficulties for the claimant, including the effect of his objection to the TUPE transfer under regulation 4(7), a possible break in continuity of employment between November 2017 and 26 December 2017, and the need to prove a dismissal in order to establish entitlement to redundancy pay. The tribunal considered the claim to have no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, but it did not strike the claim out at that hearing and instead directed the claimant to make written representations within 21 days.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	Presented outside the three-month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 23 July 2018 and therefore held it lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim presented outside the three-month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 23 July 2018 and therefore held it lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Holiday pay claim presented outside the three-month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 23 July 2018 and therefore held it lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Arrears of pay claim presented outside the three-month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 23 July 2018 and therefore held it lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal held the six-month time limit had not been exceeded and that the claim was within jurisdiction, but it identified possible difficulties on continuity and dismissal and indicated the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a), inviting written representations within 21 days rather than striking it out at that hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.