ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105053/2022 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on January 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Kenneth Beacom v Represented by Mr G McCann Lay Representative Renfrew Golf Club — 2023

Kenneth Beacom presented an unfair dismissal claim arising from the termination of his employment by Renfrew Golf Club on 26 April 2022 following a disciplinary hearing that found gross misconduct/gross breach of trust. He appealed against dismissal, with the appeal hearing taking place on 10 May 2022, and he said he was informed by letter dated 18 May 2022 that the appeal had been rejected. He contacted ACAS on 17 June 2022 and received an Early Conciliation Certificate on 20 June 2022; the tribunal treated that first certificate as the relevant one and held that, once the early conciliation period was excluded, the claim had to be presented by 28 July 2022. The claim was not submitted until 9 September 2022, about six weeks late.

The tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the "reasonably practicable" test, referring to Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton, and the extension provisions in section 207A. It held that the burden was on the claimant to show why the complaint could not have been presented in time and that this strict test was not met.

The claimant relied on depression, ignorance of tribunal time limits, and his belief that he had not been fully dismissed until the appeal was concluded. The tribunal accepted that he had suffered from depression over a number of years, but found that it fluctuated and had been managed; he had been able to pursue an appeal, attend the appeal hearing remotely, contact CAB and ACAS, and he did not seek GP help until late August 2022. It also found that he was not wholly ignorant of his rights because he knew of unfair dismissal, had access to advice and the internet, and had already started ACAS early conciliation. His view that dismissal was not final until appeal was rejected as inconsistent with the written and oral dismissal decision. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred, with no merits determination.