Mr J Dumba v London United Busways Ltd T/a RATP DEV Transit London: 2227933/2024
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider it.REASONS
[1]The claimant submitted a claim having ticked the ET1 box at 8.1 to indicate that he was owed other payments. The claim was brought against RATP Dev Transit London but in fact the correct name for that entity is London United Busways Limited and RATP Dev Transit London is its trading name. I have therefore amended the name of the respondent.[2]The claimant explained his claim at section 8.2 of the ET1. Put briefly, the claimant had been employed as a bus driver for 25 years. He had a stroke in September 2023 which left him with mobility and cognitive issues, and he was in hospital. The respondent terminated his employment on 6 December 2023. At the time he was dismissed, there was a pay dispute between the respondent and the union over the 2023 -24 pay rise. In April 2024, the claimant asked about back pay for work between 6 April and 6 December 2023, being the termination date. He was told that he wasn't entitled to any as he wasn't employed at the time the agreement was reached in February 2024. The claimant wasn't informed about this before he was terminated, and he wasn't informed of his options if he disagreed with this decision and therefore, he had brought the claim out of time. 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 1 March 2017[3]The claim is not about the claimant’s dismissal. Rather it is about the pay rise which was agreed after the claimant’s employment ceased and then backdated.[4]The claimant acknowledges that he brought the claim late. The ET1 was filed on 18 December 2024, a year after the claimant’s dismissal following ACAS conciliation from 11 November 29 November 2024.[5]As I understand the position. the respondent employer and the union were in discussions about increasing the rate of pay. They reached an agreement after the claimant’s employment ended and then paid a sum to the staff reflecting that agreement. If the claimant had still been employed, he would have been paid an additional sum for the period of time while he was working calculated as the difference between what was actually paid and the amount of pay he would have received if new rate of pay had it been in force from April 2023.[6]The first question is whether the tribunal has jurisdiction. This is not an unauthorised deduction claim because the respondent had played the claimant all the money due to him on each and every pay slip as far as I am aware.[7]This is a claim for breach of contract. Effectively the claimant says I have a right to be paid the money which represents a higher level of pay for the time I was employed calculated just if I had been entitled to the higher rate of pay for all that time. Because it was not agreed at the date when the claimant’s employment ended, it was not outstanding then.[8]I understand from reading the documents that this sum was offered on 30 January 2024 and the document bundle shows it was first paid from 16 February 2024 but I believe it was mainly paid in March 2024. As I have noted, the claimant acknowledges in April 2024 he wrote to the company asking about it.[9]The Tribunal’s contractual jurisdiction is set out in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. Rule 3 states that proceedings may be brought before an employment tribunal if they are for certain types of money. There is a requirement that the claim arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment. The tribunal has no other jurisdiction over contractual claims, and the tribunal is a creature of statute so that it has no general common law jurisdiction.[10]As this is not a claim which arose always outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment, but a claim which arose at a later date after the claimant’s employment terminated, the limited contractual jurisdiction that Employment Tribunals have does not extend to it. It is therefore my conclusion that this employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider that claim.[11]I should note there are other jurisdictional elements which may apply. There is a question as to whether the claim is out of time. The test of whether a claim for breach of contract is out of time being whether it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. While I heard an 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 2 March 2017 explanation from the claimants’ wife who represents him about that, I did not take formal evidence from her and for that reason I have not determined that point. Therefore, if I am wrong on the question of the tribunal jurisdiction, it would be necessary to consider whether the tribunal had jurisdiction in the light of the time limit applicable to claims of this type. Approved by