In person. For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant started work for the respondent on 1 August 2016 and resigned with immediate effect on 18 November 2018, having walked off shift and not returned. The tribunal identified 18 November 2018 as the effective date of termination. It also recorded that the claim had been clarified at the last preliminary hearing as constructive unfair dismissal, and that the issue for the hearing was whether the claim had been brought in time and, if not, whether it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the ordinary limit.

The tribunal found that ACAS early conciliation began on 14 February 2019 and the certificate was issued on 14 March 2019. The claim form arrived at the tribunal on 16 April 2019. On the tribunal’s calculations, the claim was two days late. The claimant had been given a first written warning on 14 November 2018, knew the outcome before he resigned, and later pursued an appeal which the respondent heard and upheld in April 2019.

On limitation, the tribunal held that the claimant knew the time limits, had taken advice from his union, and understood he had to contact ACAS and had a limited period after the certificate to lodge the claim. The claimant’s own appeal letter of 1 March 2019 stated that he would apply to the tribunal for constructive dismissal after a further month. The tribunal accepted that he had been trying to resolve matters amicably and wanted to await the appeal outcome, but it held that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time. It also noted that the claimant had internet access, could have filed online, and that posting the form on a Saturday would not have resulted in delivery by Sunday.

The tribunal did not accept that the claimant’s asserted mental health problems prevented him from presenting the claim in time, noting that there was no medical evidence. It found that he had been able to raise concerns with the employer, use ACAS, research the legal position, and attend the appeal process. The tribunal distinguished John Lewis Partnership v Charman and referred to Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority, concluding that the existence of an internal appeal was not enough to justify an extension. The complaint was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no remedy was awarded.