Ms H Huggins v Ersmedical and Thames Ambulance Service Ltd: 3201893/2019
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant has presented her complaints outside the required time limit and her claims are therefore dismissed.REASONS
[1]The matter was listed before me for a preliminary hearing to consider whether it would be just and equitable to extend the time to allow for the Claimant claims on the equality act to proceed.[2]The Claimant presented her complaints of disability discrimination to the Tribunal on 24 July 2019. She had contacted ACAS and was issued and ACAS certificate on the same day.[3]Insofar as it can be distilled from the Claimant’s claim she seems to be complaining that she was not put forward for ACA training, she was offended by Chris and not made to feel like she was part of the team. She stated that the treatment meant she was forced to leave and was in deep depression, discriminated and bullied.[4]The Claimant’s claim form then states that she ticks to box that she does not have a disability at 12.1.[5]The Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and she applied for a postponement by email dated 26 November 2019. This postponement request was refused by Employment Judge Massarella on the grounds that it was not accompanied by any medical evidence.[6]At the hearing before me Ms Hazel Wild, head of human resources and training at ERS Medical (SRCL Limited) gave evidence indicating that ERS Medical was not a proper Respondent to the proceedings. Ms Wild stated that SRCL transferred the Claimant to ERS Transition Ltd on 5 November 2017. The Claimant worked for SRCL from 4 July 2014 until 5 November 2017 and was transferred to ERS Transition from 5 November 2017 where she worked until 21 December 2018 when she resigned. The Claimant gave the reason for resigning as a new career opportunity.[7]As far as any grievance is concerned Ms Wild states that she understands that the Claimant made a grievance with SRCL before transferring and that the grievance hearing took place with ERS Transition on 28 November 2017.[8]Ms Wild also states that the people mentioned in the Claimant’s claim have left ERS Medical and have been transferred to the Second Respondent under TUPE on 12 March 2019.[9]The Second Respondent states that there was no claim against them as all matters took place before any TUPE to them.[10]Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 requires that a complaint to Employment Tribunal must be bought within a period of three months within the date of the act to which the complaint relates or some other period as the Employment Tribunal thinks is just and equitable.[11]Time limits (1) Subject to Sections 140A and 140B proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of— (a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. … (3) For the purposes of this section— (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.[12]I heard submissions from Ms Jackson on behalf of the First Respondent and Mr Allen on behalf of the Second Respondent.[13]I conclude the Claimant’s relationship with ERS Transition Ltd concluded on 12 December 2018. Subject to any ACAS extension she ought to have brought a claim to the Tribunal in relation to matters relating to employment by 11 March 2019. In any event it is likely the Claimant is referring to matters that predated the transfer to ERS Transition on 5 November 2017 and as such it is possible that the time limit would have expired on 4 February 2018.[14]I have not heard any evidence from the Claimant as to whether it would be just and equitable to extend time, however when considering the balance of prejudice, I conclude that a number of the employees to which the Claimant makes allegations against may be unavailable or have limited recall of events. I concluded that the balance of prejudice favours the Respondents neither of whom, on the submissions before me, are correctly identified as potentially liable. The First Respondent could only be liable for events predating 5 November 2017. The Claimant has not presented her complaint within the required time limit and I do not conclude that it is just and equitable to extend time.[15]In these circumstances the Claimant’s claims are dismissed.