[1]This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim alleging unfair dismissal. The claim appears to have been presented outside the statutory time limit. The effective date of termination as agreed between the parties was 19 December 2017. ACAS were contacted under the early conciliation procedure on 15 February 2018 and the ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued on 15 March 2018. The application was presented to the Tribunal on 17 April 2019. The time limit for presenting it expired on 15 April 2018.[2]I heard evidence from the claimant who explained that following her dismissal after a disciplinary hearing, she took advice from her Trade Union and relied also upon some guidance from ACAS. She was aware that there were time limits in relation to the presentation of unfair dismissal claims but was unclear as to the exact details and was seeking to rely upon others to give her guidance.[3]She followed the proper procedure in notifying ACAS so that they could endeavour to engage in early conciliation. That not having been successful the early conciliation certificate was issued. Under the relevant law which applied, this would give the claimant the opportunity of an extension of time for the presentation of her claim.[4]The claimant explained that the stress from which she had suffered meant that she was absent from work from the middle of 2017 up to the date when she was dismissed. She did not work again up to the time when she was summarily dismissed.[5]Medical evidence was produced to the Tribunal by way of a GP letter and also a letter indicating that the claimant was on a waiting list to receive more expert investigation with regard to her medical problems, which in the event did not take place until after the termination of her employment. No other evidence was produced to the Tribunal with regard to this.
The Law
[6]The relevant law which applies in this situation is under the Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 111 (2) Subject to the following provisions of the section, an Employment Tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section, unless it is presented to the Tribunal(a) Before the end of the period of three months, beginning with the effective date of termination, or(b) Within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable 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. 2A Section 207B (Extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) apply for the purposes of sub-section (2) (a) Section 111 (2) (a) and (b) provide that any claim for unfair dismissal must be presented to the Tribunal within the relevant timescale which is three months from the effective date of termination. Under the early conciliation scheme by ACAS, amendments were made to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 18A provides that where a certificate is obtained as it must be, and if the time extends beyond the three months period, that the time for presentation of a claim is extended to expire one month from the date of the certificate, which in this case means 15 April 2018. Section 111 (2) (b) of the Employment Rights Acts sets out a statutory exception whereby the Tribunal can allow a case to be presented out of time and within such period as the Tribunal considers reasonable where the Tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months.[7]The issue for me to determine today is whether it was reasonably practicable for Mrs Barry to have presented her claim to the Tribunal within the extended time period allowed under the amended statutory provisions. Mr Joicey has referred me to a number of well-known cases which deal with the question of how a Tribunal should approach the question of reasonable practicability with regard to whether a claim could have been presented in time. That is not a test of physical possibility but one to take into account various scenarios. These included the extent to which a person took skilled and other advice either from solicitors or trade unions or other advice agencies.[8]The cases also address the relevance of illness from which a claimant may have suffered and the extent to which that will allow the Tribunal to say that the illness made it not reasonably practicable for the case to have been presented in time. The relevant cases which I have considered are as follows:- Palmer and anor –v- Southend on Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372 Asda Stores Ltd –v- Kauser ET 0165/07 Dedman –v- British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR Times Newspapers Ltd –v- O’Regan 1977 1 ALR 101 London Borough of Islington –v- Brown EAT 0155/08 For the purposes of the present case it is noted that there was some involvement of the Trade Union. However there is no evidence to say that the Tribunal gave incorrect advice or that Mrs Barry relied upon incorrect advice. The Tribunal does not have the power to extend the period.[9]With regard to the issue of illness, whilst I sympathise with Mrs Barry in relation to what are long standing difficulties, I must address this as to whether the effect that she was suffering from stress related illness made it not reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim within the time frame to which I have made reference.[10]There is no sufficient evidence before me to the effect that Mrs Barry was not capable of having presented her claim by the date mentioned. She did take appropriate steps having received guidance from the Trade Union and with help from her mother in approaching ACAS as she was required to do. After receiving the certificate she then prepared and lodged her application, again with assistance from her mother. However, there was no evidence to persuade me that it was not reasonably practicable for that application to have been presented to the Tribunal two days earlier than it was which would have meant that it was in time and that would have given the Employment Tribunal jurisdiction to hear the claim.[11]Whilst it may seem harsh, the time limits which are set down in the legislation for the presentation of claims are always strictly applied unless there are clear grounds to enable an extension to be granted. With regret I find that in this case there are no valid grounds for extending the statutory time limit. Therefore on a legal basis I have no option but to find that the claim is out of time and that the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Accordingly I dismiss the claim. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
The Law
[1]Failure to comply with an order for disclosure may result on summary conviction in a fine of up to £1,000 being imposed upon a person in default under s.7(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.[2]The Tribunal may also make a further order (an “unless order”) providing that unless it is complied with, the claim or, as the case may be, the response shall be struck out on the date of non-compliance without further consideration of the proceedings or the need to give notice or hold a preliminary hearing or a hearing.[3]An order may be varied or revoked upon application by a person affected by the order or by a judge on his/her own initiative.