IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of t h e Employment Tribunal i n Case No: 8000133/2023 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard at Edinburgh o n t h e Cloud Based Video Platform o n the th of J u n e 2023 Employment Judge J G d’lnverno v M r Rasheed Adegbola Adewusi Ark Housing Association Ltd — 2023

The claimant worked for Ark Housing Association Ltd from 3 June 2013 to 14 November 2022 as a Support Worker. He was summarily dismissed on 14 November 2022 for asserted gross misconduct arising from an incident on 2 September 2022, and his internal appeal on 1 December 2022 was rejected on 16 December 2022.

The tribunal dealt only with time bar. It found that ACAS early conciliation began on 23 January 2023 and the certificate issued on 25 January 2023, so the extended deadline for both the unfair dismissal claim and any EqA claim based on the dismissal was 25 February 2023. The ET1 was first presented after that date; the reasons and disposal refer to 23 March 2023, although one finding of fact refers to 22 March 2023.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant had dyslexia and dyspraxia, but found the principal reason for lateness was his mistaken belief that ACAS had given him an extra three months, and found that he could have prioritised the drafting and arranged paid proofreading if he had realised the true deadline.

For race discrimination, the tribunal held that the ET1 contained no recognisable complaint because the claimant had only ticked the race box and the attached particulars contained no reference to race or facts from which such a complaint could be inferred. It therefore declined to extend time under s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010 as not just and equitable. The claimant's later Agenda and email references to race discrimination, victimisation and discrimination arising from disability were treated as new matters outside the scope of the open preliminary hearing and said to require amendment if pursued. No remedy was awarded because both claims were disposed of at preliminary hearing.