Mr A Eynanshe v London General Transport Services Ltd (T/a Go Ahead London): 6005771/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6005771/2025

Between

Mr A EynansheClaimant

London General Transport Services Limited (T/A Go AheadRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Corrigan

In person for claimant

Mr Neaman (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 15 October 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The unfair dismissal complaint was submitted in time and the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider it. Approved by

REASONS

For judgment sent on 14 November 2025 Provided at the respondent’s request

[1]The claimant was employed as a bus driver from 6 August 2003 until he was dismissed on 4 November 2024 at a disciplinary hearing held in his absence. He submitted his claim on 20 February 2025.

[2]The preliminary hearing was listed to deal with the question of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit and if not whether it was presented within a reasonable period. However there was also an issue of when the claimant became aware, or reasonably ought to have been aware, of the dismissal.

[3]The claimant was assisted by an observer who is a Somali speaker and assisted him with communication. The claimant said he needed assistance with just some words. Both sides were keen to press on with the hearing and not adjourn for an interpreter. The respondent was not aware of any need for an interpreter. I agreed to proceed today on this basis.

[4]The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. Ms Stevens gave evidence on the respondent’s behalf. There was also a written statement prepared by Mr Kiani on the respondent’s behalf. There was a bundle of 256 pages.

[5]Both sides had the opportunity to make submissions and the respondent had prepared a skeleton argument.

[6]Based on the evidence heard and the documents before me I found the following facts.

Facts

[7]The claimant was absent following a road traffic accident due to chest pain and had submitted a sick certificate up to 26 November 2024.

[8]There was a history as detailed in the respondent’s case of issues with contact with the claimant during his absence. He accepts that on the 15 October 2024 he was told by Mr Kiani by phone of the importance of keeping in touch during absences. I accept his preferred means of contact with the respondent was normally phone, email or text.

[9]The respondent emailed him on 30 October 2024 via his work email address to invite him to a disciplinary hearing on 4 November 2024. The hearing proceeded in his absence and he was dismissed. The dismissal letter was posted to his home address by first or second class post on 15 November 2024 and emailed to the claimant’s work email address on 18 November 2024. He had access to his work email address until 23 November 2024 after which his access was removed due to the dismissal.

[10]The claimant had not checked his email and was not aware of the hearing or the outcome.

[11]The claimant accepts the postal correspondence arrived at his home while he was unwell but a family member put it away in a box rather than show him. He was not initially aware of it. They had done the same with the September letter (see the history set out by the respondent).

[12]He obtained a further sick certificate on 27 November 2024 saying he was unfit to work due chest pain and shoulder pain up to 26 December 2024.

[13]In early December when he was not paid he then discovered he did not have access to his email. He contacted the respondent and then went and obtained a copy of the letter by hand. He accepts he received it on 8 December 2024. He appealed on 9 December 2024 and went to see the manager with his union representative in late December.

[14]The appeal was heard on 12 February 2025. He was told and he accepted that this delay was because the union rep for his garage was away from 22 December 2024 to 5 February 2025. He was offered a new position during the appeal. He spent some time asking around and finding out information before he decided to turn it down. He then contacted ACAS and issued this claim on 20 February 2025.

[15]He says he is “just an ordinary man” and does not know about the timing of claims though he was told of the existence of ACAS and did eventually successfully contact them. English is not his first language and he has had assistance today – and has access to assistance. He has not given this as a reason for delaying bringing his claim.

Relevant law

[16]The legal principles were set out in the respondent’s skeleton argument. In particular, where dismissal is communicated by letter the contract does not terminate and time does not start to run until either the employee has read the letter and knows he has been dismissed or has had a reasonable opportunity of discovering its contents and therefore to know he has been dismissed. I can take account of the reasonableness of the claimant’s behaviour in not availing himself of an earlier chance to read the letter (Gisda Cyf v Barratt

[2010] ICR 1475

Conclusions

[17]I accepted the claimant did not in fact read his dismissal letter until 8 December 2024 and that he did not know of the dismissal hearing on 4 November 2024.

[18]The question for me is whether he had a reasonable opportunity prior to that to read the letter and discover he had been dismissed.

[19]He was sent the letter by first or second class post on 15 November 2024 and someone else in his family put it away without his knowledge. They had done similar for the previous letter sent in September. We do not in fact know when that letter was received. The claimant found out what the family member had done after he became aware of the dismissal.

[20]He was sent an email on 18 November 2024 to his work address while on sick leave.

[21]As set out above I am entitled to take account of the reasonableness of the Claimant’s behaviour in not reading the correspondence earlier.

[22]I accept that the Claimant was not even aware of the correspondence being put aside in the box by family members while he was unwell. It was not an active decision on his part to ignore it.

[23]Whilst there was an expectation that he would be in touch with the respondent during his sick leave I do not accept that he should reasonably be expected to be checking his email daily whilst on extended sick leave. Whether or not the claimant was sufficiently in touch/responded to calls prior to the dismissal is a matter for the substantive hearing. He was submitting sick notes as required.

[24]I do not consider it unreasonable that he had not seen the correspondence by email when it was sent, or even by 23 November 2024 when he lost access (again without his knowledge), given he was signed off sick and was not aware of the hearing.

[25]Overall I do not consider it was unreasonable that he did not see the letter prior to 23 November 2024 in circumstances where he was signed off sick and a family member had moved his post without his knowledge. Potentially he ought reasonably to have become aware of the situation when he next made contact and submitted the next sick note on 27 November 2924. Prior to that I do not consider in the circumstances he had had a reasonable opportunity to become aware of the dismissal. This puts the claim in time. Approved by