Case 4110826/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4110826/2019 Held at Edinburgh on January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Glenn Telfer v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110826/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4110826/2019 Held at Edinburgh on January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Glenn Telfer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal identified two claims: unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and less favourable treatment under regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The hearing was an open preliminary hearing on time bar. The claimant had been removed from the respondent's supply list and treated 12 April 2019 as the date of dismissal, but did not obtain an ACAS early conciliation certificate until 10 September 2019 or present his ET1 until 16 September 2019.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal applied the reasonable practicability test. It rejected the claimant's explanations for presenting late, including his asserted belief that the time limit was six months, his pursuit of information through FOI requests, uncertainty about employment status, and the wider context of previous disputes. The Tribunal held that it had been reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit and therefore had no jurisdiction.
For the part-time worker claim, the Tribunal considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It treated the delay from 11 July 2019 to 16 September 2019 as significant, found the reasons for delay did not support an extension, and considered the relevant prejudice, evidence, information request, promptness, and advice factors. Taking those matters together, the Tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the part-time worker claim for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction; the Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed because the claim for less favourable treatment as a part-time worker was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction; the Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 5 Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- regulation 7(2) Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 8A Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- reasonable practicability
- just and equitable
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan 1979 ICR 52
- Palmer and Another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 IRLR 434
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones 2008 IRLR 128
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others 1997 IRLR 336
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi 2003 ICR 800
- Porter v Bandridge 1978 ICR 943
- section 33(3) Limitation Act 1980
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.