Mr D Rybarczyk v Twenty Four Seven Recruitment Ltd Heard: via Cloud Video Platform in Midlands (East) Region — 2022

Mr D Rybarczyk brought a holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. The respondent had indicated in open tribunal that it admitted owing £918.10 and was willing to pay the full holiday pay claimed, which the claimant said was £943.39, but that did not alter the time-limit issue.

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s employment ended on 20 February 2021 and that his last pay, including holiday pay, was received on 5 March 2021. He had contacted the respondent about additional holiday pay on 22 February 2021, then involved the GMB trade union, which advised him on his rights and the three-month tribunal time limit. The claimant started Early Conciliation on 30 April 2021, but the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 11 June 2021 and sent to the GMB, not to him.

Applying regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Early Conciliation extension rules, the Tribunal held that the relevant deadline expired on 11 July 2021. The claim was not presented until 19 August 2021, almost six weeks late. The Tribunal reviewed authorities including Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd, Radakovits v Abbey National plc, Bewick v SGA Forecourts Ltd, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd, Times Newspapers Ltd v O’Regan, and Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists.

The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was aware of his rights and time limits, that he had relied on the GMB to progress matters, and that the union had advised him on both merits and limitation. It found that the fault lay initially with the GMB for not forwarding the Early Conciliation Certificate or telling him it had been issued, but concluded that it was nevertheless reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. It also found that the claim was not presented as soon as reasonably possible after the claimant learned it was late. The claim was dismissed.