Miss D Antonescu v Royal Borough of Greenwich: 2300781/2017
JUDGMENT
The application by the Claimant to add further Respondents is refused. It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the claim is dismissed.REASONS
[1]On 8 March 2017 the Claimant presented a claim to the Tribunal. She stated that she had been employed by the Respondent as a teacher from September 1991 until January 1998. She ticked the boxes in section 8.1 of the claim form ET1 to indicate that she was making a claim of disability discrimination and also under the heading of ‘other payments’. She then added the word ‘Pension’.[2]A large number of documents was attached to the claim form. They were all heavily annotated with comments made by the Claimant. It is very difficult to ascertain from the papers supplied exactly what is being alleged against the Respondent. It is however apparent from those documents, and others subsequently provided to the Tribunal by the Claimant, that the principal complaint being made by the Claimant is that she is not receiving any pension under the Teachers’ Pension Scheme to which she says she is entitled as a result of her employment. The documents include correspondence from the Respondent, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, the Department for Work and Pensions, an MP, and the Department for Education. Her specific complaints against the Respondent appear to be that it has destroyed all relevant records, and that it has not responded to letters from her. It is also alleged that the Respondent did not pay over to HM Revenue & Customs deductions made from her pay.[3]Although the Claimant refers to disability discrimination she does not state what that disability is, nor exactly in what manner it is alleged that the Respondent discriminated against her because of that disability, or by reason of anything arising from it.[4]The claim was listed for this preliminary hearing to decide whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider whatever claims the Claimant was making, taking into account the statutory time limits. The relevant time limit is three months from the date when the cause of action accrued, subject to an extension to allow for the ACAS early conciliation process. In this case that period was 28 days. The Tribunal may extend the time limit where it is just and equitable so to do.[5]It is the responsibility of a claimant in these circumstances to demonstrate to the Tribunal when the cause(s) of action accrued due, and that the claim was presented within the time limit. Further, if the claim was presented outside of the time limit, then the burden is on the claimant to show why it is just and equitable to extend that time limit. In this case the Claimant has failed to set out exactly what claim(s) is or are being made against the Respondent over which the Tribunal has any jurisdiction, and consequently she has not demonstrated that any such claim(s) was or were made within the time limit. The claim must therefore be dismissed.[6]The Claimant has applied for HM Revenue & Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department 7 for Education, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Pensions Ombudsman as additional Respondents to the claim. That application is refused on the ground that the Claimant has not disclosed any claim in respect of which the Tribunal can have any jurisdiction against those bodies.[7]The Respondent presented a response. It was stated that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 1991 to 1998 on a supply basis apart from a short period in 1993. The Respondent said that it appeared that the Claimant was alleging that it had not paid National Insurance Contributions to HMRC, and it maintained that the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction in that respect. Further, it was said that there was no prima facie complaint of disability discrimination. It applied for the claims to be struck out under rules 27 or 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and also said that the claims had been made outside of the statutory time limit.[8]One of the various miscellaneous documents sent to the Tribunal from time to time by the Claimant was what appears to be a summary statement provided by the Teachers’ Pension Fund. That shows the Claimant as having been employed by the Respondent from 1 April to 31 August 1993. That ties in with the statement in the ET3 response that the Claimant worked for the Respondent on a supply basis apart from the period from March to August 1993 when she was employed on a fixed term contract.[9]A notice of a preliminary hearing to be held on 12 May 2017 was issued at the same as the claim was served on the Respondent. The purpose was to consider case management issues. Following receipt of the response form an Employment Judge gave notice to the parties that at the hearing the Tribunal would consider whether it had the jurisdiction to determine the claims made by the Tribunal taking into account the statutory time limit. The Claimant did not attend that hearing and I gave judgment dismissing the claims. Reasons for that judgment were provided. I also referred to applications which the Claimant had made for a postponement, which I will not repeat here.[10]Various documents were received from the Claimant after the hearing and it is difficult to tell from the Tribunal file when each was received. Included were letters from the Claimant referring to recent injuries to her foot and hand, and being unable to travel. I considered that in all the circumstances it would be in accordance with the overriding objective of the Tribunal to deal with matters justly if there were to be this hearing to reconsider the judgment made at the hearing on 12 May 2017 and consider other matters. The notice of hearing stated that the purposes of this hearing were to be as follows: 1 To ascertain exactly what claims the Claimant seeks to bring against the Respondent, and on what date(s) the Claimant says that the right to bring a claim arose. 2 To consider the Claimant’s application for a reconsideration and revocation of the judgment dated 15 May 2017 which dismissed the claim as having been presented out of time. 3 If the judge considers it appropriate, to consider the striking out of the claim on the ground that it has no reasonable prospect of success.[11]Both parties attended this hearing by telephone. Despite some technological difficulties I am satisfied that it was possible to hold a fair hearing, although it is necessarily not as satisfactory as holding a hearing with the parties or their representatives attending in person. The principal conversation was between the Claimant and me. I enquired of Miss Burton from time to time whether she understood what the Claimant was saying, and she confirmed that she had done so.[12]I first sought to ascertain from the Claimant the fundamental aspects of her claim in connection with the pension issue. She said that in February 2016 she had discovered that occupational pension contributions and also National Insurance Contributions which had been deducted from her salary had not been paid over to the Teachers’ Pension Fund or HMRC as the case may be. I was not able to ascertain any further details but I do not consider it necessary to do so.[13]The Claimant also said that she had been advised by the Tribunal office in Leicester that the time limit for the presentation of a claim was three years, rather than three months. I cannot accept that that was the advice which was given, but in the end the point is not material to the outcome. I am not therefore setting out other information provided by the Claimant as to issues with the ACAS early conciliation scheme.[14]The Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to resolve all difficulties which may arise as a consequence of employment or other relationship relating to work. The Tribunal must have been provided with such jurisdiction by statute or secondary legislation. The complaints that deductions which the Claimant said had been made from her pay had not been paid over to the Teachers’ Pension Fund and/or HMRC are matters over which the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction. There is no prospect of success in such claims. Similarly, the complaint that the Respondent had destroyed records held by the Respondent is not a complaint which is justiciable before the Tribunal.[15]I emphasise to the Claimant that I am not making any decision as to whether or not she is entitled to a greater occupational or State pension than that which she is at present receiving, or which she has been told she will receive. The position is simply that these matters over which I have no jurisdiction. Any such issues have to be pursued through other channels.[16]The Claimant raised the question of adding HMRC, the Teachers’ Pension Fund, the Department of Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Advisory Service as additional respondents as she had obtained an ACAS early conciliation in respect of each of them. I had considered that matter at the hearing on 12 May 2017 and refused the application on the ground that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction over those bodies in respect of the pensions issue which troubles the Claimant. I was not prepared to reconsider that decision.[17]I sought to ascertain from the Claimant what the issues were under the head of disability discrimination. The Claimant said that her complaints were under two headings. The first related to pregnancy complications in 1994 when, she said, she was not allowed time off. The second was that when she was working for it the Respondent did not take any notice of her requirement to have documents provided to her in large print. The Claimant said that she had decided at the time not to pursue the matter in court, and that she would let it go.[18]Miss Burton said that these were entirely new factual allegations which related to the time over 20 years ago when the Claimant was working for the Respondent, and no mention had been made of them in the ET1, nor in the documents sent with it. As far as I can see the Claimant simply alleged that the Respondent had ‘disrespected’ her disability. Miss Burton said that an amendment to the claim would be required for which the Claimant would have to apply for leave.[19]The position is this. The Claimant had ticked the box to indicate that she wished to bring a claim of disability discrimination. No details were provided. It is possible in such circumstances for a claimant to fill in the details of such allegation later in the proceedings. However I conclude that the claims which the Claimant now seeks to bring under this head should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. It is fanciful to conclude that a tribunal would decide it had jurisdiction in respect of such claims brought some 20 years or so after any cause of action had arisen in circumstances where the Claimant had stated that she had specifically decided not to pursue the matter at the time.