Allan v Hydrasun Limited — 2022

The claimant was employed by Hydrasun Limited from 28 January 2013 until his employment ended on 25 September 2015 in a redundancy exercise affecting about 70 to 80 employees. The tribunal found that the claimant’s role as a CNC Operator/Setter was one of several reduced from nine posts to five, and that a scoring exercise placed him among the four lowest scorers. He met HR and management on 22 September 2015, received a letter on 23 September 2015, and raised representations about the scoring before a discussion on 2 October 2015, after which the respondent did not alter his scores.

For limitation purposes, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 25 September 2015 and that an unfair dismissal claim should have been presented by 24 December 2015. The ET1 was not lodged until 27 October 2021, after ACAS early conciliation in late October 2021. Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal considered whether it had been 'not reasonably practicable' to present the claim in time and referred to Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council and Asda Stores Limited v Kauser in explaining the statutory test.

The claimant’s case was that he did not bring a tribunal claim because, during the redundancy discussions, he had been told that if a CNC Operator/Setter vacancy arose in future he would be offered the job and would be prioritised. The tribunal did not accept that there was evidence of any promise or guarantee made to prevent him from bringing proceedings. It found that, even if there had been some assurance about future vacancies, that would not have stopped him from presenting an unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit. The tribunal also found that by 2 October 2015 he knew the facts needed to bring a claim and that nothing prevented him from doing so.

The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal complaint in time, and it dismissed that claim for want of jurisdiction. It also recorded that the age discrimination claim and the 'clash of interests outside the workplace' claim had been withdrawn before the hearing and were dismissed accordingly. No monetary award was made.