In person For the v Respondent — 2021

This was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott on whether the claimant’s claims had been presented in time and, if not, whether time should be extended. For unfair dismissal, the tribunal took the effective date of termination as 31 May 2020, so the primary three-month limit expired on 30 August 2020. The claim was lodged on 3 November 2020, but the tribunal accepted that the claimant had access to union advice, had been told to refer the matter to Acas, had difficulties with the first Acas certificate naming the wrong respondent, and encountered technical problems submitting the claim online. On that basis, it held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time and that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter.

The claimant said at the hearing that she did not wish to proceed with her sex discrimination claim, and the judgment records that claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining discrimination material was considered under the just and equitable time limit. The religion/belief complaint was that, as a Catholic employee working 18 hours, she had repeatedly asked for an extra 2 hours, including at sickness absence review meetings on 6 November 2019 and 4 December 2019, and alleged that this was refused by managers she identified as Jewish. The disability material included allegations of anxiety/depression, treatment during sickness absence, an emailed OH report said to breach confidence, and a refusal to compensate for hair loss; the harassment allegation concerned being denied access to the OH office on returning to work in March 2020.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not acted on these discrimination complaints at the time, had not raised a grievance, and had access to union advice but did not take it. It held that her ignorance of the ability to bring discrimination claims was not reasonable, that her health did not excuse the delay, and that the pending internal appeal against dismissal did not explain the delay because the discrimination complaints were free-standing. It also noted that several allegations were not pleaded in the original claim form and some were not even included in the further information, and found that the delay would adversely affect the cogency of the evidence. Balancing hardship, it held that the discrimination claims were out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were dismissed at this preliminary stage.