In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as a head chef and was dismissed on 28 June 2018 after the incident on 20 June 2018 in which he refused to cook dinner for a group of 48 guests, left duty, and exchanged words with management. The tribunal recorded that the dismissal was upheld on appeal on 8 August 2018 and that the ET1 was presented on 3 December 2018, after Acas early conciliation had begun on 1 November 2018.

On the protected-disclosure dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the claim was outside the primary time limit under s.111 ERA 1996. It treated 27 September 2018 as the end of the primary limitation period and found that it was reasonably feasible for the claimant to present in time, because he had researched the issue online, consulted the CAB, and still had time after the appeal outcome. The late presentation was due to his mistaken assumption that time ran from the appeal decision, not from the effective date of termination.

The tribunal also said that, on the evidence before it, the more likely reason for dismissal was the events of 20 June 2018 rather than protected disclosures. It noted that the claimant had worked out an arrangement on Sunday working before termination, by moving to a 20-hour contract that ensured Sundays were off, so that issue did not have causative significance for the dismissal or future loss.

The religious discrimination complaint was also held to be out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the Sunday-working issue had been resolved to the claimant's satisfaction before 28 June 2018 and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Both complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.