Case 4106564/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Karunwi v Represented by:10 Ms A Bowman - Solicitor Nacor Healthcare Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 4106564/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Karunwi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant began work for Nacor Healthcare Services Ltd on 19 June 2023 as a home care worker on 37.5 hours per week and was employed under a Certificate of Sponsorship. She was absent from work in July/August 2023 and again from 7 October 2023, submitted a fit note covering 13 October to 17 November 2023, and was invited to a meeting on 19 October 2023 which did not go ahead. The tribunal found that the respondents did not rearrange the meeting, did not offer further work and revoked the claimant’s Certificate of Sponsorship at the end of October 2023; it did not treat the later P45/P60 dates or the NHS reference as conclusive of the dismissal date.
Applying the three-month limits in s.111 ERA 1996, Article 8B of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order and s.23 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to find out about her dismissal after the fit note expired in November 2023, but did not make any enquiry of the respondent until June 2024 despite being a Unison member and having trade union support. It did not accept that she could rely on ignorance of the dismissal date or of the time limits, and it was not persuaded that she had shown that presentation in time was not reasonably practicable. The claim was lodged on 19 August 2024 after ACAS contact on 17 August 2024.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal/breach of contract, unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay claims. For the detriment allegations under s.146 TULRCA 1992 and s.12(1) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, the tribunal treated the pleaded acts and failures as a series and held that at least one alleged detriment fell within the primary limitation period, so those detriment claims were allowed to proceed to a final hearing. The merits of the reference dispute and the other detriment allegations were not determined at this preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was pleaded under s.94 ERA 1996 and s.152(1)(a), (b) and (ba) TULRCA, together with s.12(3) Employment Relations Act 1999. The tribunal held that it was presented out of time and did not accept 20 June 2024 as the effective date of termination; the reasons contain inconsistent references to the dismissal date, but the operative order was that the claim could not be considered. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal was pleaded as a breach of contract claim. The tribunal held the claim was out of time because it depended on the effective date of termination and could not be considered. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This covered alleged failure to pay four shadow shifts, failure to pay wages and sick pay, and failure to provide work or 37.5 hours per week. The tribunal held these contractual claims were outside the primary limitation period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim included alleged non-payment of statutory sick pay and other wages. The tribunal held the last possible deduction was outside the three-month time limit and did not accept an extension. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination was held to be out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- reasonable practicability test
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.147 TULRCA 1992
- s.12(1) Employment Relations Act 1999
- Article 8B Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt
- Brown v Southall & Knight
- Robinson v Bowskill and others
- Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson
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.