Jamie McGuire v Search Consultancy Ltd — 2024

Jamie McGuire worked for Search Consultancy Limited as an agency warehouse operative assigned to John McGavigan Ltd from about 8 August 2022 until 16 June 2023. The tribunal found that he raised concerns in May 2023 about a pay discrepancy, that David Mulgrew emailed on 31 May 2023 acknowledging a sum of £127.93 due and saying it would be paid, and that on 16 June 2023 Tracy McIntyre texted that she was terminating his contract and would organise his P45 and outstanding holiday pay. The claimant said he believed he had been dismissed because he had raised the pay issue and that he had made a protected disclosure.

The claim before the tribunal was not a merits hearing. It was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the complaint had been brought in time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or whether it should be heard out of time because it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Jillian Fleming for the respondent, and it accepted the claimant as credible and reliable. It also noted that the respondent's internal RDS file recorded the end of the assignment as a 'deemed resignation', which was inconsistent with the text message referring to termination.

The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. It found that the claimant knew of his right to bring the claim when he contacted ACAS and certainly knew by the start of early conciliation on 16 June 2023. It also found that he was aware of the three month time limit during the limitation period and that, even if there had been some instability in his working and domestic circumstances, by about 9 October 2023 it was at least reasonably practicable to present the claim.

Because the ET1 was not presented until 28 June 2024, the tribunal held that it was out of time and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint under section 111 ERA 1996. It added that, if it had needed to decide the alternative issue, it would have held that the claim was not presented within a reasonable time after the extended limitation date. The judgment dismissed the claim on that basis and did not determine the underlying whistleblowing allegation on its merits.