Case 4110920/2021 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110920/2021 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on February 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms Dorota Polewiak v McSence Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110920/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110920/2021 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on February 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms Dorota Polewiak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Dorota Polewiak presented her claim on 19 August 2021 after ACAS early conciliation. She said she had been discriminated against on grounds of pregnancy or maternity and had been underpaid holiday pay and related sums, with the underlying events arising during her maternity leave and after her return to work in February 2020. The hearing on 1 February 2022 was a preliminary hearing on whether the tribunal had jurisdiction because the claims may have been presented out of time.
On the pregnancy or maternity discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had faced serious personal difficulties after a premature birth, including concerns about her baby’s health and her own stress-related illness. It found, however, that the main explanation for the delay was that she waited for the internal grievance process to finish before bringing a Tribunal claim. Applying the just and equitable test under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and British Coal v Keeble, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
For the remaining claims, the tribunal applied the "not reasonably practicable" test under section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the holiday pay issue had become apparent when the claimant’s terms and conditions changed, but that she did not investigate tribunal time limits until a late stage, despite remaining at work for much of the period, pursuing grievances and appeals, and only later contacting ACAS. The tribunal therefore held that those claims were also out of time and dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal held it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred. The judgment groups the non-discrimination complaints together, including holiday pay and related pay issues, and refers to both the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998; the record is not entirely clear as to how each pay issue is labelled. The judgment also refers at different points to January 2020 and January/February 2021 when describing when the holiday pay issue became apparent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust v Crouchman
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.