Mr K Goodman v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd: 6013466/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6013466/2024

Between

Mr K GoodmanClaimant

Sainsburys Supermarkets LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Daley

In person for claimant

Mr Robert Winspear - Counsel for respondent

Mr. Kevin Goodman for claimant

Mr. Robert Winspear- Counsel for respondent

Date 11 September 2025

JUDGMENT

(1) The claim, the complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so.

(2) The claim, the complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The claimant claimed compensation for unfair dismissal under Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[2]The claimant was employed as a Heavy Good’s Vehicle driver by the Respondent, who are a national supermarket. The claimant was employed from 10 August 1996 until his dismissal in May 2024 on grounds of capability.

[3]The respondent denied the claimant’s dismissal was unfair, in its entirety relying on an assertion that the claimant was dismissed due to his unsatisfactory attendance at work.

The Background

[4]The claimant was employed on 10 August 1996. The claimant was subject to the terms of the respondent’s policies and procedures, which included their sick absence policy. The claimant in his ET1 set out that following an accident in 2023, he had a spell of sickness, this was followed by family bereavements. In his claim he set out that following his absence he was invited to a meeting with his manager and following this meeting he had a further spell of sickness and sick leave caused by the stress of this meeting.

[5]On 4 May 2024 the claimant was invited to a stage 4 sickness absence meeting, in the letter of invitation, the claimant was notified that the outcome of the sickness absence meeting could result in his dismissal. At the meeting which took place on 8 May 2024, the decision was taken to dismiss the claimant. The decision was communicated orally to the claimant and confirmed in writing on 13 May 2024. The Procedural History

[6]On 8 July 2024, the claimant applied to ACAS for early conciliation on the grounds of his unfair dismissal. The early conciliation period ended on 19.08.24, and a certificate was granted, The claimant issued his ET 1 on 1 October 2024.

[8]On 6 November 2024 the respondent served their ET3 and Grounds of Resistance.

[9]The matter was listed for a final hearing for 4-5 August 2025 without a case management hearing on the papers.

[10]On 7 February 2025, the respondent’s representative wrote to the Tribunal setting out that the claimant did not have jurisdiction to bring the claim and given this this issue ought to be considered prior to the parties filing their witness statements. They asked for the matter to be listed for a preliminary hearing.

[11]The matter was listed for a hearing on 7 July 2024. The hearing was to determine whether the claim had been presented within time and if not whether it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the time limit? If not, was it presented within a reasonable period? Case Number: 60093/2024 3

The Issues

[12]The issues have been set out as I understood then to be, and which I consider relevant, in reaching this decision.• Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal. The Hearing Attendance

The Hearing

[13]The hearing was held at Watford Employment Tribunal. The claimant, Mr. Goodman, represented himself. The respondent was represented by Mr. Robert Winspear Counsel.

The Evidence

[14]The Tribunal was provided with a bundle of documents from the respondent, The respondent referred to the directions which had been sent by the tribunal to the parties setting the matter down for hearing.

[15]The respondent’s representative told the Tribunal that the respondent was asked to file a witness statement of the facts relied upon, however the respondent, in response raised the issue as to whether the claim had been brought in time and asked that the matter be set down for a preliminary hearing.

[16]He submitted that the claimant had been dismissed on 8th May 2024, following which the claimant had made a referral to ACAS. He told the Tribunal that early conciliation had been completed on 19 August 2025, and that following this the claim should have been brought by the 18 September 2024. However, the claim was not issued by him until 1 October 2024.

[17]Mr Winspear referred the Tribunal to Section 111(2)(a) &

(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which set out that a claim must be brought to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the Case Number: 60093/2024 4 complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months. Mr Winspear acknowledged that this period was automatically extended due to the ACAS conciliation period.

[18]However, he submitted that notwithstanding this extension, the claim was out of time and that there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim before 1 October 2024. He submitted that there was no witness statement of facts upon which the claimant relied upon for an extension of time and that the tribunal should be slow to accept oral submissions on this point.

[19]Mr Winspear submitted that during the three-month period prior to 18 September 2024, there was evidence of activity by the claimant as the claimant had been involved, in appealing the dismissal via the respondent’s appeal process. He had applied to ACAS and was actively seeking work which he found. Given this, the claimant could not rely upon ill health as a reason why he could not bring the claim within the 3-month time limit.

[20]The Tribunal heard from Mr Goodman who told the tribunal that after his dismissal, he had found work through an agency and given this. he had had been unable to personally deal with his claim. He had forwarded all his paperwork to his Unite advisor, who unfortunately had a bereavement abroad, this had meant that he had not issued the claim in time. He told the Tribunal that he was just a lorry driver who was not familiar with “all the legal jargon...”

[21]The Tribunal heard from the claimant who set out that he had been supported by Unite in bringing his claim and that he had relied upon the advice from Unite and his advisor to bring the claim.

[22]In reply, Mr Winspear said that there was no evidence that the claimant was unable to file the claim himself, he submitted that the onus was on the claimant to ensure that his claim was filed in time and that he could not rely on any failing of his advisors.

[23]The Law and the issues Complaints to employment tribunal (1)A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer. (2) subject to the following provisions of this 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 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. Case Number: 60093/2024 5 2A) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (2)(a). Whether the claimant has jurisdiction to bring unfair dismissal proceedings. The Tribunal’s findings of facts

[24]The Tribunal finds that the effective date of termination was 13 May 2024 It noted that although the claimant was orally dismissed, he was entitled to written notice of termination. The Tribunal find that the claimant applied to ACAS and the certificate was issued on 19.08.24, the practical effect of this was to extend the date for submission of his claim for unfair dismissal for one month less one day ending on 18.9.24.

[25]The claimant’s claim was submitted on 1 October which was 12 days outside the time limit set out in Section 111 (2) (a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Given this the Tribunal may only consider the claimant’s case if the Tribunal finds that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be brought in time.

[26]The Tribunal considered the reason given by the claimant as to why his claim was submitted late. That is that he had relied upon Unite, and unfortunately his advisor was unable to submit his claim on time due to his advisor’s bereavement.

[27]The Tribunal finds that Unite, a union are experienced in bring claims and are aware of the time limits, it was feasible that there was more than one person who could have submitted his claim. Further the Tribunal acknowledges that during that time period, the claimant was not unwell or incapacitated in anyway and given this there was no good reason as to why his claim could not be submitted on time.

[28]The Tribunal finds that the test of reasonably practicable is a very high bar and given this it means something more than that it was inconvenient.

[29]The Tribunal finds that there was no compelling evidence that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be issued in time although it may not have been convenient for the claimant.

[30]Given this the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider this case and the claimant’s claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction. ___________________________________ Employment Judge Daley Date: 11.09.2025 Sent to the parties on: 13 September 2025 N Gotecha For Secretary of the Tribunals Case No: 6013466/2024 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. Kevin Goodman Respondent: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited Reconsideration request

The Evidence

[1]The Tribunal has determined that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because at the time that the claimant issued his claim for unfair dismissal was out of time.

[2]The claimant who was employed as a Heavy Goods Vehicle by the Respondent. The claimant was employed between 10 August 1996 until 13 May 2024.

[3]On 8 July 2024, the claimant submitted a claim for ACAS, a certificate was issued on 19 August 2024. On 1 October 2024 the claimant issued his claim for Unfair Dismissal.

[4]The Tribunal found that the claimant was employed until 13 May 2024 and that on the issue of his ACAS certificate on 19.08.24, he had one month less a day to issue his claim for unfair dismissal.

[5]Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that a claim must be presented within 3 months beginning with the effective date of termination. Accordingly, the claimant’s claim should have been issued pursuant to the ACAS certificate by 18.09.24.

[6]As the claim was not brought in time the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim.

[7]The claimant at the hearing set out that he relied upon his advisor to issue his claim and that the delay was caused by his advisor. Case No: 6013466/2024 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72

[8]The Tribunal having considered his request for reconsideration are satisfied that the request does not include any new grounds which undermine the Tribunal’s decision.

[9]Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is refused