Employment tribunal advice

Priesty1977

Hi all, looking for some advice. I am currently taking my company to a tribunal over an incident in work which ended with both me and my supervisor being sacked, and on speaking to a number of people decided to take them to court for lost earning as I see that they used this to escape paying me 10 years redundancy as they are looking at closing their UK office soon anyway. The nature of the case is not so much the problem but the time frame in which I handed it in. Now the Tribunal accepted my claim on which I wrote that my claim is a little over the 3 month period due to the fact that they took so long over my appeal which was give or take a day one month. I have had a call from ACAS today and they have been informed by my company’s legal team that they are going to ask for it to be thrown out on the basis that it is too late. They have also offered me £500 to settle now before they have to respond on the 23rd June. Does anyone know if they will get this thrown out on these grounds? I thought if the Tribunal have accepted my claim the time frame must have already been taken into account. If anyone has some advice on this it would be much appreciated. I have until tomorrow to respond.

Thanks

Caroline_a

I would be led by what the people from ACAS say - they were very helpful to me.

Emmzi

dependw who you spoke to at ACAS, there are some scathing comments on the quality of their call centre staff on other threads.

SarEl will have a view based on real life experience. I would suggest you talk to your union or a solicitor.

Priesty1977

That's why I came on here as I had been warned that Acas do not always give the best advice. I just don't understand how the claim can be accepted and then it's validity questioned due to time frame.

KiKi

Priesty1977 wrote: »

That's why I came on here as I had been warned that Acas do not always give the best advice. I just don't understand how the claim can be accepted and then it's validity questioned due to time frame.

ACAS' advice depends on who you get. Some are good; many know basics, but actually advise wrongly on the finer points (and even basic points) of employment law!

SarEl or LazyDaisy are definitely your best bet on this one.

KiKi

MyUserName_4

They can try to argue that your complaint is out of time, but as the Tribunal has accepted your claim at the outset, it will need to go to a Pre Hearing Review to ascertain whether or not the claim will be allowed to proceed.

Respondents are entitled to ask for PHRs to get a claim struck out if there are such issues and they can be fairly common, but sometimes a PHR, if it is allowed by the judge, can mean that a claim has little prospects of succeeding.

At PHR stage usually the evidence will be examined and you can say that you were trying to mitigate your loss (with the delayed appeal).

They WILL need to go through a PHR, so there is plenty of opportunity to settle later if needed, and you should in any case be able to push up their offer, if that's what you want.

Please take my comments at face value as every case is different, but I just wanted to give an idea of what's involved.

Priesty1977

Thank you that is most helpful as I wasn't sure at all about the procedure next. I will take your comments as advice and will make my own decision. It's good to hear as many people's opinion as possible, as everyone has different experiences.

SarEl

Priesty1977 wrote: »

Hi all, looking for some advice. I am currently taking my company to a tribunal over an incident in work which ended with both me and my supervisor being sacked, and on speaking to a number of people decided to take them to court for lost earning as I see that they used this to escape paying me 10 years redundancy as they are looking at closing their UK office soon anyway. The nature of the case is not so much the problem but the time frame in which I handed it in. Now the Tribunal accepted my claim on which I wrote that my claim is a little over the 3 month period due to the fact that they took so long over my appeal which was give or take a day one month. I have had a call from ACAS today and they have been informed by my company’s legal team that they are going to ask for it to be thrown out on the basis that it is too late. They have also offered me £500 to settle now before they have to respond on the 23rd June. Does anyone know if they will get this thrown out on these grounds? I thought if the Tribunal have accepted my claim the time frame must have already been taken into account. If anyone has some advice on this it would be much appreciated. I have until tomorrow to respond.

Thanks

Sorry - for some reason I missed this earlier. You and MyUserName are both wrong. The tribunal did not accept your claim - they acknowledged the receipt of it. When they say "accept" - what they mean is "received". Whether it falls within their jursidiction is a metter to be determined later - and your employer is challenging jurisdiction, which, I must say, they will win on.

You submitted a claim late. Full stop. End of story. The tribunals will not extend the deadline because your reason is not within the permitted reasons to extend (which are few). Your company took "a month give or take" to arrange an appeal - so you had another two months "give or take" to get a claim in. Why didn't you? You can also make a claim concurrently with the appeal - you may not have known this, but it is your responsibility to know the law, not the employers and not the tribunals. Ignorance of the law is not a vaild reason for a late submission.

They may decide to schedule a PHR - but if the late submission is clear it may simply be struck out anyway without one. But even if there is a PHR - the employers offer is off the table and you walk away with nothing.

They will get it thrown out on these grounds. Take the money and run.

MyUserName_4

SarEl wrote: »

Whether it falls within their jursidiction is a metter to be determined later

Whilst I consider you the expert and welcome your opinion, I'm inclined to disagree with the above statement, with respect to the information the OP has given.

The Judge could have reached the decision that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the ET, because of the time limit issue, at the time of considering the OP's ET 1 submission. However, he/she allowed the claim to proceed and did not reject it on the basis that it was out of time. It is my opinion, that the Judge was unable to pre-empt a decision on whether or not it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be submitted on time, based on the information the OP provided on his/her ET1 form. This question needs to be addressed at some point and I get the impression that the OP did not address this matter sufficiently, in his/her ET1, to enable the Judge to make a decision on the point of how reasonably practicable it was to get a claim in on time.

E.g. We know that the OP thought he could not submit a claim to the ET before the appeal was over, but why did he think this? Was it, for instance, because he received bad advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau? We also don't know when he/she found out about the Company's plans to relocate and that the real reason for his dismissal was to avoid a redundancy payment.

Since the OP has mentioned the time limit issue in the ET1, it will not come as a surprise to the Judge considering the case as he/she was already aware of the issue. It would be a different matter if the OP had not made reference to this and the respondent subsequently requested that the claim be struck out because it was out of time.

In my opinion, I think it's likely that a PHR will be requested to determine whether it was reasonably practicable to submit a claim on time, which leaves more room for negotiation up to that hearing.

I don't believe the case is so clear cut, based on the OP's information, that it can be struck out without first addressing prelimary questions. If it was clear cut, then it would be quite easy for the OP's former employer to save themselves £500 and get the claim struck out just by sending in their ET3 response.

Given the OP's former employer's willingness to settle, when faced with the prospect of attending hearings (PHR) they may be willing to push up their original offer.

Of course tribunals are full of risk (on both sides) and no outcome is guaranteed, the claim could well be struck out, but the level of acceptable risk is for the OP to weigh up. Personally, I would not lose much sleep over £500.

Priesty1977

Hi

Thanks for your posts all that have posted. I turned down the offer before reading SarEl's post. I have since heard back from their solicitors and they are seeking a PHR to be held on the date of the original tribunal which is the 6th October, they have also re offered me the £500 until 5pm today. Does this mean they are not so sure they will win? They are threatening costs against me but from what I have read on a .gov website this would be highly unlikely as really only stands for unreasonable behaviour. Your input is most welcome and appreciated.

Thanks

Priesty

SarEl

MyUserName wrote: »

Whilst I consider you the expert and welcome your opinion, I'm inclined to disagree with the above statement, with respect to the information the OP has given.

The Judge could have reached the decision that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the ET, because of the time limit issue, at the time of considering the OP's ET 1 submission. However, he/she allowed the claim to proceed and did not reject it on the basis that it was out of time. You clearly do not understand how tribunals work. The judge does not open the post. An admin officer does and sends out a standard letter. This letter does not imply acceptance that the claim is valid - only that it has been received. The judge has therefore not seen it and has not either accepted it nor rejected it.

It is my opinion, that the Judge was unable to pre-empt a decision on whether or not it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be submitted on time, based on the information the OP provided on his/her ET1 form. This question needs to be addressed at some point and I get the impression that the OP did not address this matter sufficiently, in his/her ET1, to enable the Judge to make a decision on the point of how reasonably practicable it was to get a claim in on time. As I said - the judge does not look at the claim and does not need to rule on anything - it is up to opposing sides to make a claim, and that is what has happened.

E.g. We know that the OP thought he could not submit a claim to the ET before the appeal was over, but why did he think this? Was it, for instance, because he received bad advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau? We also don't know when he/she found out about the Company's plans to relocate and that the real reason for his dismissal was to avoid a redundancy payment. None of which is relevant. I have already told you - ignorance of the law is not a valid reason for late submission, and nor is being wrongly advised. if you are wrongly advised that is a matter between you and your advisor. And it also doesn't matter when the OP found out about the alleged real reason for their dismissal - the claim must be within three months of the dismissal. Just because I find out something seven months later that would have given me a claim does not entitle me to do so.

Since the OP has mentioned the time limit issue in the ET1, it will not come as a surprise to the Judge considering the case as he/she was already aware of the issue. It will if he hasn't read the claim yet - which he undoubtedly hasn't. And it doesn't matter whether he has or not - in law he has not accepted the claim. It would be a different matter if the OP had not made reference to this and the respondent subsequently requested that the claim be struck out because it was out of time. No - it wouldn't. The only thing that matters is whether an extension is permitted on jursidictional grounds and the OP has not given any jurisdictional grounds. Quite the contrary - the reasons the Op has given are categorically not jurisdictional grounds.

In my opinion, I think it's likely that a PHR will be requested to determine whether it was reasonably practicable to submit a claim on time, which leaves more room for negotiation up to that hearing. That may be your opinion - it is not a statement of the law. The OP has said - it took a month for their appeal to be heard and they missed the deadline two months later. How on earth could it have been impossible to submit a claim in a two month period?

I don't believe the case is so clear cut, based on the OP's information, that it can be struck out without first addressing prelimary questions. If it was clear cut, then it would be quite easy for the OP's former employer to save themselves £500 and get the claim struck out just by sending in their ET3 response. I disagree - it is clear cut. The ET3 response no more gets read by the judge at this stage than the claim does - the employer has called for a ruling and that is correct.

Given the OP's former employer's willingness to settle, when faced with the prospect of attending hearings (PHR) they may be willing to push up their original offer. Obviously not - they haven't. They are trying to save themselves some costs, yes - but the PHR will do that all on its own so they won't save much.

Of course tribunals are full of risk (on both sides) and no outcome is guaranteed, the claim could well be struck out, but the level of acceptable risk is for the OP to weigh up. Personally, I would not lose much sleep over £500.

It is up to the OP what they decide to do, but I am 100% certain and clear that based on the OP's statements here there is no jurisdiction and that your advice is based on what you think a tribunal should do and not what they actually do. The OP is welcome, of course, to take either advice. I would agree that £500 isn't much money, but that is my view. The OP may differ - it may be a great deal of money to them. And certainly better than nothing.