Case 4103172/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Scott McCluskey v Action For Children — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103172/2022
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Scott McCluskey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on limitation in a claim of constructive unfair dismissal brought by Mrs J Scott McCluskey against Action for Children. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant, considered an agreed bundle, and received additional emails after the hearing continued for further evidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned by email on 9 September 2021 and that the effective date of termination was 7 October 2021, so the three-month time limit for presenting a constructive dismissal claim expired on 6 January 2022. It found that the claimant was a member of Unite, had been receiving advice and representation from the union, and knew from the union that she had three months after termination in which to start a claim. The tribunal relied in particular on the claimant's email of 23 November 2021 and the declaration she signed on 14 December 2021, both of which confirmed that time limits remained her responsibility until any claim was lodged.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant applied to Unite for member-related legal assistance on 14 December 2021, but found that Unite told her at the end of March or beginning of April 2022 that it was no longer acting for her and had not started tribunal proceedings. The claimant then sought legal advice, contacted ACAS on 20 May 2022, obtained an early conciliation certificate dated 23 May 2022, and submitted her ET1 on 9 June 2022. Applying section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the approach in Marks & Spencer Plc v William-Ryan and Pora v Cape Industrial Services Ltd, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The claim was therefore dismissed as out of time, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim was presented out of time. The tribunal found it would have been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so it was dismissed without a merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Marks & Spencer Plc v William-Ryan [2005] IRLR 562
- Pora v Cape Industrial Services Ltd UKEAT/0253/18
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.