ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4123835/2018 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on June 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms Caroline Waterloo v National Library of Scotland — 2019

The claimant presented this case on 25 December 2018, after her employment had ended on 14 June 2018. The tribunal recorded that she complained of automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract, breach of health and safety obligations, and victimisation by dismissal following a protected act. It also noted that she had brought earlier proceedings against the same respondent, including claims of unfair dismissal and victimisation, which had already been heard and dismissed.

On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 14 June 2018 and that the claim was outside the three-month limit in section 111(2) ERA 1996. It rejected the claimant's argument that there had been a later dismissal in October 2018 when the appeal outcome was communicated, finding instead that the appeal merely upheld the earlier dismissal decision. It also rejected the argument that her employment continued until 14 December 2018 because of contractual notice, holding that any such point went to breach of contract rather than to the date of termination.

The breach of contract claim was treated in the same way. The tribunal held that the claim arose from the termination on 14 June 2018, that it was presented out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, and that it had been reasonably practicable to bring it in time. The tribunal referred to the fact that the claimant had already amended her earlier proceedings to include a breach of contract complaint and then withdrew it, which undermined her case on limitation.

For victimisation, the tribunal applied section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and held that the act complained of was the dismissal decision made in June 2018. It did not accept that events after dismissal amounted to a continuing act, and it noted that a victimisation claim had already been raised in the earlier proceedings and pursued to judgment. On that basis, the tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, saying it would not be just and equitable to allow a late claim in substantially the same terms to proceed again. All claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred.