Mr O Thornton v C McHardy and Royal Mail Group Ltd: 3313526/2019

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3313526/2019
Mr O ThorntonClaimantClyde McHardy (1) Royal Mail Group Limited (2)Respondent
Employment Judge HawksworthIn person for claimantDate 21 January 2021

JUDGMENT

The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint against the first respondent, the claimant having failed to notify Acas for early conciliation in respect of the first respondent. The complaint against the first respondent is therefore dismissed. The claim will proceed against the second respondent. __________________________ Employment Judge Hawksworth Dated 22 July 2019 Sent to the parties on: ……08.08.19………. For the Tribunal: ………………………….. Case Number: 3313526/2019 (V) 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr O Thornton v Royal Mail Group Heard at: Bury St Edmunds (by CVP) On: 15 January 2021 Before: Employment Judge Laidler Appearances For the Claimant: In person. For the Respondent: Miss K Faulkner, Solicitor. COVID-19 Statement on behalf of Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals. This has been a remote hearing which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform (V). A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. JUDGMENT[1]It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his unfair dismissal claim within the requisite time period. Having been presented out of time the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint of unfair dismissal which is dismissed.[2]The full merits hearing remains listed for 27 September to 1 October 2021.[3]The respondent has accepted that the claimant satisfies the definition of disability by virtue of anxiety and depression, Borderline Personality Disorder and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. It was agreed at this hearing that Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder is only another description of these conditions and that consequently the Tribunal does not Case Number: 3313526/2019 (V) 2 need to determine whether the claimant also satisfies the definition of disabled by virtue of that description.