Parker v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought two complaints of unlawful deduction from wages against the personal representative of Neil James (deceased). The first related to an alleged deduction of £1.56 per hour during a three-month probationary period beginning on 1 September 2008 and ending on 1 December 2008. The second related to an alleged failure to pay a 3.1% backdated wage increase for April 2020 to October 2020 after the claimant had left employment on 1 October 2020.

The tribunal set out the relevant time limit under s.23 ERA 1996 and the exception where it was not reasonably practicable to present a complaint within three months. It cited the authorities of Wall’s Mat Co Ltd v Khan, Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea BC, and Asda Stores v Kauser when explaining the approach to the reasonably practicable test. It also referred to s.13(3) ERA 1996 and noted that there was no extension under s.207A ERA 1996 for the later claim because ACAS was not contacted within the relevant period.

On the first complaint, the tribunal found the last alleged deduction was around 1 December 2008, so the claim was over 12 years out of time. It accepted that the claimant had felt uncomfortable raising the issue while working one-to-one with the respondent, but held that discomfort did not make it not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within time. It also held that 12 years was not a reasonable further period.

On the second complaint, the tribunal found the last deduction was on 1 October 2020 and the three-month limit expired on 31 December 2020. ACAS was not notified until 14 March 2021 and the claim form was not presented until 3 May 2021, so the claim was brought 4 months and 3 days late. The claimant could not explain the delay, and the tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable to present that claim in time. Both complaints were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction under s.23 ERA 1996.