Case 4104731/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Thomson v CCR Catering — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104731/2020
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants worked at the Puttery, a restaurant at Tulliallan Golf Course in Alloa. The first claimant worked there from about 20 February 2018, then for Barry Finlayson from 11 April 2019, and from 6 January 2020 the respondent took over operation of the Puttery. The second claimant worked there from about 7 May 2019. Both employment relationships ended on 23 March 2020 when the respondent terminated employment at the time of the covid lockdown.
The tribunal first considered time bar. The effective date of termination was 23 March 2020, early conciliation began on 8 July 2020, and the claims were presented on 3 September 2020. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for either claimant to start early conciliation or present unfair dismissal, notice pay, or holiday pay claims within the three-month time limit. It therefore held that the unfair dismissal claims, the notice pay claims, and the second claimant's holiday pay claim were time barred and outside its jurisdiction.
On qualifying service, the second claimant did not dispute that he lacked the two years' continuous service needed for unfair dismissal. The tribunal accepted the first claimant's evidence that her contract transferred to the respondent on 6 January 2020 under regulation 4 of the TUPE Regulations 2006, so that by the date of dismissal she had been continuously employed for over two years. That meant she had the qualifying service needed for unfair dismissal, but her unfair dismissal claim still failed because it was out of time.
The first claimant's redundancy payment claim was different. The tribunal held that it was presented within the six-month time limit in section 164 ERA 1996, so it was in time. It found that this part of the claim could proceed if settlement could not be agreed between the parties. No redundancy award or other monetary award was made in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The first claimant's unfair dismissal claim and the second claimant's unfair dismissal claim were presented more than three months after the effective date of termination on 23 March 2020. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for either claimant to start early conciliation or present the claim in time. The second claimant also did not dispute that he lacked the two years' continuous service required by section 108(1) ERA 1996; the first claimant was found to have over two years' continuous service through the TUPE transfer, but her unfair dismissal claim remained time barred. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The first claimant's redundancy payment claim was presented within six months of the effective date of termination and was therefore in time under section 164 ERA 1996. The tribunal also found that her contract transferred to the respondent on 6 January 2020 under TUPE Regulation 4 and that she had sufficient continuous service to pursue the claim. No merits decision or monetary award was made in this preliminary judgment; the claim was said to proceed if settlement could not be agreed. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The first and second claimants' notice pay claims were found to be out of time. Applying Article 7(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claims within the three-month time limit, so it held that it had no jurisdiction to consider them further. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The second claimant's holiday pay claim was also held to be out of time. Applying regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit, so it held that it had no jurisdiction to consider it further. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.164 ERA 1996
- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- Regulation 4 of the TUPE Regulations 2006
- Article 7(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.