Miss A Kaczmarek v Greencore Prepared Meals Ltd: 2403198/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2403198/2024
Between
Miss A KaczmarekClaimantGreencore Prepared Meals LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge LeachIn person for claimantMiss Pringle (instructed by solicitor) for respondentDate 7 November 2025
JUDGMENT
In this claim, the claimant complains that she was unfairly dismissed. The claim was presented outside of the primary time limit at section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) as extended by the terms of section 207B ERA. It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her claim in time. The claim is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Leach 7 November 2025 Case Number: 2403198/2024 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES 18 December 2025 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case No: 2403198/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Kaczmarek Respondent: Greencore Prepared Meals Limited Heard at: Manchester (by CVP) On: 7 November 2025. Before: Employment Judge Leach (sitting alone) Representation: Claimant: In person Respondent: Miss Pringle (solicitor) Interpreter: Mr Adam JUDGMENT and reasons dismissing the complaints of unfair dismissal having been given orally at the hearing and written reasons having been asked for by the claimant by email of 2 December 2024, in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the following reasons are provided: PRELIMINARY HEARING - REASONS Introduction[1]This preliminary hearing was listed to consider and decide whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her claim in time, having regard to the relevant statutory time limits. Proceedings to date[2]It is not disputed that the claimant was dismissed from her employment with the respondent, on 9 or 10 November 2023. As at the date of dismissal the claimant had been employed for just over 2 years.[3]The claimant commenced early conciliation (EC) on 22 January 2024. The date of the EC certificate (therefore the date the EC period ended) is 26 January 2024. Case No: 2403198/2024[4]The claimant presented her claim form on 23 May 2025. The claim form raises a complaint of unfair dismissal. Relevant Law Time Limits – ERA.[5]Section 111(2) of the ERA provides that a complaint of unfair dismissal must be “presented to the Tribunal –a. Before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, orb. Within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.[6]Section 18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 prohibits an individual who wants to commence “relevant proceedings” in the tribunal, to do so unless that person has gone through the ACAS early conciliation process and obtained a certificate.[7]Section 207B of the ERA extends the time limits at s111(2) to take account of the statutory requirement for early conciliation, where (as here) the claimant has contacted ACAS within those time limits. The time limit is extended EITHER by the length of the EC period; OR (where the primary 3 month time limit expires less than a month before the end of the date of the EC Certificate), by one month from the date of the EC Certificate.[8]The term reasonably practicable means neither “reasonable”, nor “something that is physically capable of being done”. The term means somewhere between these 2 (Palmer v Southend on Sea BC 1984 IRLR 119). I also note the following from paragraph 35 of Palmer: What, however, is abundantly clear on all the authorities is that the answer to the relevant question is pre-eminently an issue of fact for the Industrial Tribunal and that it is seldom that an appeal from its decision will lie. Dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case, an Industrial Tribunal may wish to consider the manner in which and reason for which the employee was dismissed, including the extent to which, if at all, the employer's conciliatory appeals machinery has been used. It will no doubt investigate what was the substantial cause of the employee's failure to comply with the statutory time limit; whether he had been physically prevented from complying with the limitation period, for instance by illness or a postal strike, or something similar. It may be relevant for the Industrial Tribunal to investigate whether at the time when he was dismissed, and if not then when thereafter, he knew that he had the right to complain that he had been unfairly dismissed; in Case No: 2403198/2024 some cases, the Tribunal may have to consider whether there has been any misrepresentation about any relevant matter by the employer to the employee. It will frequently be necessary for it to know whether the employee was being advised at any material time and, if so, by whom; of the extent of the advisors' knowledge of the facts of the employee's case; and of the nature of any advice which they may have given to him. In any event it will probably be relevant in most cases for the Industrial Tribunal to ask itself whether there has been any substantial fault on the part of the employee or his advisor which has led to the failure to comply with the statutory time limit. Any list of possible relevant considerations, however, cannot be exhaustive and, as we have stressed, at the end of the day the matter is one of fact for the Industrial Tribunal taking all the circumstances of the given case into account.[9]In Walls Meat Co Ltd v. Khan [1978] IRLR 499 the Court of Appeal distinguished between circumstances where a claimant was entirely ignorant of their employment rights and therefore their ability to bring a claim and those where a claimant knew of their right to bring an employment claim but not making enquiries as to how and within what period the claim should be presented.[10]In her submissions Miss Pringle included a reference to the EAT judgment in Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] EAT 108 and particularly the following comment at Para 53 “A person is who is considering bringing a claim for unfair dismissal is expected to appraise themselves of the time limits that apply; it is their responsibility to do so. Findings of Fact – relevant to the time limit issue[11]There is no dispute about the dates noted above under the heading “Proceedings to Date.”[12]The claimant contacted ACAS and undertook Early conciliation. Having done so, she did not then comply with the time limit for presenting the claim itself. Having regard to the effect of section 207B ERA in extending time limit to take account of early conciliation, the last date by which the claim should have been presented was 26 February 2024. The claimant did not present the claim until 23 May 2024.[13]The claimant provided evidence in the form of an email dated 20 August 2024 and in response to questions put by Miss Pringle.[14]There was a one page extract from the claimant’s medical records dated 20 October 2023 ( therefore pre dating the dismissal date).[15]I find, from the information provided, that the end of 2023 and into 2024 was a very difficult time in the claimant’s life. The claimant was the victim of domestic abuse and of course she lost her job. Case No: 2403198/2024[16]During the period following her dismissal the claimant received support from family and friends as well as a domestic violence adviser, housing officer and social worker.[17]The claimant’s evidence about events between dismissal and the issuing of her claim is not clear. I have considered this lack of clarity in the light of the difficulties that the claimant was facing and also the fact that she is living and working in the UK and that English is not her first language. These are my findings of relevant events in that period:-a. Following the dismissal on 9 or 10 November 2023 the claimant sought advice and assistance about enforcing employment rights, from family and friends and also through the agencies who were supporting her at the time.b. The claimant knew, a month or 2 after her dismissal, that she wanted to make a claim of unfair dismissal. With assistance from friends/ the agencies, she learned that she needed to go through an ACAS early conciliation process and she did so.c. The period of EC only lasted 4 days. The claimant was asked why this was and the reply was that she had no idea. I am afraid I do not accept that. On balance, I find something must have been decided by or on behalf of the claimant to cut short the ACAS process.d. The claimant says she was not told about the time limits for bringing a Tribunal claim. Her evidence is that in Poland there are no time limits at all and her assumption was that the same applied here. Again, I find that difficult to accept that a potential claimant has undertaken the ACAS early conciliation process and has not come to learn about employment tribunal time limits and what impact the EC process has on these. On balance I do not accept the claimant’s evidence on this point.e. I considered the possibility that one of the friends/family members or advisers might have assisted with the ACAS process and that person or persons might not have passed the relevant information on to the claimant. But that evidence has not been provided at all, either by the claimant or by a friend or adviser attending and giving evidence. That possibility was really just speculation on my part.f. One reason that was advanced during the cross examination (in response to a question about whether the claimant had internet availability) was that the claimant did not have access to the internet. She was asked why and she explained that her ex partner (who had behaved violently or otherwise abused her) took away the internet contract. Later it was put to the claimant that she would still have been able to access the internet through her mobile phone. The claimant’s explanation at that stage was that the claimant paid for her mobile phone by direct debit and the mobile phone company decided that she should only be allowed to make phone calls and was not Case No: 2403198/2024 permitted to access the internet. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept the claimant’s account on this point. Had the claimant been refused/not allowed internet access by her phone provider this was potentially important evidence that could have been provided. My Decision[18]It is for the claimant to provide an explanation as to why it was not reasonably practicable for her to have brought her complaint in time. I do not accept the evidence that the claimant provided in the email and in response to questions today to be the reasons why the time limit was missed.[19]It is for C to provide reasons as to why her claim form was presented so far out of time. To the extent that reasons have been provided, I have not accepted the claimant’s account.[20]In the alternative in so far as a combination of language issues, difficulties accessing the internet, health issues and financial hardship did cumulatively form the reasons for missing the deadline, my conclusion is that it was still reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The claimant was able to undertake the ACAS EC process well within the relevant time limits. She knew by 26 January 2024 that process had had not provided a resolution and at that stage she knew ( or should have found out by making reasonable enquiry) that she had a further month to bring the claim. There is no evidence that support being provided to her stopped at that stage or that the circumstances under which she had navigated the ACAS process then changed (in terms of language, internet access, health and financial issues) to the extent that she was unable to navigate the next stage of the process and comply with the time limit.[21]It was reasonably practicable for her to have brought the claim by 25 February 2024. She did not do so. Outcome[22]The claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal (under sections 98 and 103A) are dismissed as being out of time.