Mr A Ozoemena v Claymore Contracting Services — 2019

Mr Ozoemena said that while working first for Claymore Contracting Services and then Navigate Contracting Limited, deductions were made from his pay for items such as employers' national insurance, apprenticeship levy and pension contributions, and that holiday pay had not been paid as required. He lodged the Glasgow claim on 26 July 2019 after earlier ACAS contact and after a London case in which similar issues had been raised.

At the hearing the Employment Judge allowed Claymore's ET3 to be lodged late, but the case was dealt with only on preliminary issues. The parties agreed that the claimant had been employed by Claymore from 4 January 2018 to 2 July 2018 and by Navigate from 2 July 2018 to 4 January 2019. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the deductions or holiday pay complaints.

On time bar, the tribunal held that the claim against Claymore was brought outside the three-month time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring an in-time claim because he had already consulted ACAS and had previously lodged proceedings on the same underlying issues. The tribunal relied on the 'not reasonably practicable' test and cited Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan and Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.

The tribunal reached the same result in relation to Navigate. It held that the Glasgow claim was also out of time because it was not presented within three months of the end of the employment on 4 January 2019, and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier. Both claims were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal expressly made no finding on whether there had been statutory authority or agreement for the disputed deductions.