Cart 0
Login
Northern Ireland
Charles v Tesco Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1663
Published on: 21/12/2012
Issues Covered:
Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background The appellant employee made a complaint against the respondent supermarket that he was a victim of race discrimination. The claim failed as it outside the time limit and so the Employment Tribunal did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. The employeeappealed against this decision. The appellant had lodged a grievance against a colleague which was subsequently dismissed but upheld on appeal. He was initially offered compensation payment but this was later withdrawn after a meeting with management. The appellant took proceedings to the Employment Tribunal alleging delay and disparate unfair treatment in how his grievance process was being handled. The tribunal decided that the withdrawal of compensation was not a part of his complaint. The EAT dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was against a finding of fact that the tribunal had been entitled to make. The appellant submitted that time had not started to run until August 17, 2010 and that both tribunals should have given attention to a complaint in his ET1 about the offer and withdrawal of compensation on that date or provided an explanation as to why this was ignored. 38The appeal was allowed. It was clear from reading the completed ET1 in its entirety that the appellant‟s complaint went beyond the initial events on June 4. Neither tribunal had fully appreciated the significance, for time limit purposes, of the full extent of his complaints in the ET1. Both tribunals should not have concluded that the identification of the complaint was a finding of primary fact. The ET1 should have been treated as a document by each tribunal. The time limit question essentially involved a determination of what complaints were actually being made. It may have appeared that the appellant's main complaint was the delay in processing his grievance. But the appellant was also making a complaint of continued unfavourable treatment at the August meeting, and his complaint therefore fell within the statutory time limit. http://bit.ly/WvmGsG

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 21/12/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →