Miss A Reidy v First Scotland East Limited — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 2 October 2020, Miss A Reidy sought to amend her claim to add sex discrimination allegations based on her treatment compared with a male colleague, but she did not insist on that amendment after the tribunal explained that she could still lead evidence about differential treatment without making a separate Equality Act claim. The hearing therefore proceeded only on the respondent's time-bar objection to the claimant's section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 detriment complaint arising from alleged protected disclosures.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she had been employed as a bus driver since 2009, that she was given notice of dismissal on 24 August 2018 due to sickness absence, that the dismissal was later overturned and she returned to work in January 2019, and that she had union representation during the disciplinary and appeal process. It also found that the alleged detriments took place between April and November 2018, that early conciliation began on 4 June 2019, and that the section 47B claim was not presented until 10 July 2019.

Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been under stress, had been focused on returning to work, and said she had not appreciated the specific statutory route for a protected disclosure detriment claim, it held that those matters did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The tribunal placed weight on the fact that she had trade union representation, had not suggested that she asked the union whether she had such a claim, and had already raised a grievance about her treatment. It referred to Asda v Kauser and Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council in concluding that stress and waiting for appeal proceedings were not enough on their own.

The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the section 47B complaint within three months of November 2018, being the last alleged detriment, and that in any event the delay until July 2019 was not reasonable. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the section 47B claims. It recorded that the case should be listed for a final hearing to consider the claimant's unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal claims.