In person with Ms Marciniak (her daughter) For the v Ms Forrest (solicitor) Interpreter Ms I Budzynska — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing about time limits and jurisdiction. The claimant, a production operative, had worked for the respondent since at least 2009 and was dismissed on 24 October 2022 for capability due to ill health. She said she did not receive the dismissal letter until a day or two later and, with help from her daughter, sent an appeal/grievance on 1 November 2022. The tribunal accepted that she had poor physical and mental health and did not speak good English, but also found that she and her daughter obtained advice from Citizens Advice and ACAS within the primary time limit.

The sex discrimination complaint was withdrawn. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because it was presented more than three months late and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. The tribunal took into account the claimant's health and dependence on her daughter, but concluded that, once advice about time limits had been obtained, it was reasonably feasible to complete the remaining steps within time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.

The disability reasonable adjustments complaint, said to arise from a request for a chair and a warmer working environment from May 2021, was also struck out. The tribunal held that this was not a continuing act but a failure to act, so time ran from when the respondent would reasonably have been expected to make the adjustments, at the latest by the end of 2021. It found the claim was brought more than two years late and, weighing the length of delay, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the respondent, it was not just and equitable to extend time.

By contrast, the tribunal extended time for the disability complaint that the dismissal itself was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that the claimant could not bring the claim without assistance, that her daughter was heavily constrained by work and caring responsibilities, and that the prejudice to the claimant in refusing an extension outweighed the prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal noted that, apart from an issue with the first Early Conciliation certificate, the claim would have been only about six weeks late, and it held that this complaint would proceed to a merits hearing.