Mr B Sidell v Stuart de Frain Ford: 2303707/2017
JUDGMENT
It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the claim be dismissed.REASONS
[1]On 14 December 2017 the Claimant presented a claim to the Tribunal naming the Respondent as Stuart De Frain-Ford. He provided an ACAS early conciliation certificate number R186872/17/41. That certificate names the prospective respondent as Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.[2]Section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provides that before a claim may present an application to the Tribunal in respect of ‘relevant proceedings’ he must provide ACAS with prescribed information. The claims being made are of disability discrimination, and of harassment and bullying. Insofar as the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the claims, they are ‘relevant proceedings’.[3]The Early Conciliation Rules of Procedure provide that the prescribed information includes the prospective respondent’s name and address. It is apparent that the Claimant did not provide ACAS with the Respondent’s name and address.[4]In my judgment these proceedings are a nullity and by reason of the failure of the Claimant to follow the early conciliation procedure they should not have been served on the Respondent in the first place. Employment Judge Baron 20 April 2018 Case No: 2303707/2017 1 THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Between Claimant: Mr B Sidell Respondent: Stuart de Frain-Ford[1]On 14 December 2017 the Claimant presented a claim to the Tribunal naming the Respondent as Stuart De Frain-Ford. He provided an ACAS early conciliation certificate number R186872/17/41. That certificate names the prospective respondent as Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.[2]Section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provides that before a claim may present an application to the Tribunal in respect of ‘relevant proceedings’ he must provide ACAS with prescribed information. The claims being made are of disability discrimination, and of harassment and bullying. Insofar as the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the claims, they are ‘relevant proceedings’.[3]The Early Conciliation Rules of Procedure provide that the prescribed information includes the prospective respondent’s name and address. It is apparent that the Claimant did not provide ACAS with the Respondent’s name and address.[4]In my judgment these proceedings are a nullity and by reason of the failure of the Claimant to follow the early conciliation procedure they should not have been served on the Respondent in the first place. 4 The principal basis for the reconsideration application, as I understand it, is that I should have amended the claim to name Surrey Fire and Rescue Service as a respondent, either as an additional respondent or in substitution for Mr de Fraine-Ford. I do not consider that that would have been appropriate for two reasons. The first is that the point about a failure to comply with the ACAS early conciliation process had specifically been raised in the response form ET3, and the Claimant had had an opportunity to seek to resolve the procedural difficulty before the hearing. He did not make any application to amend the claim form, nor to obtain another ACAS early conciliation certificate. The second reason is that it is not the function of the Tribunal to correct the failure of the Claimant to follow the procedure provided for by statute.[5]The Claimant has also said that he did not receive the letter notifying him of the hearing. I do not know if that is correct or not. The Tribunal clerk telephoned him at 12.15 pm approximately and my note is that the Claimant said that he had learned about the hearing on the preceding Case No: 2303707/2017 3 evening, and that he was not able to come to the hearing. No application for a postponement was made.