Background:

The claimant has been in employment with the respondent for 17 years and holds the position of Chief Inspector.  The case relates to her application for promotion to Superintendent in 2021.  The claimant was unsuccessful and was notified in December 2021.

The claimant requested written feedback on her performance at interview and this was duly furnished to her on 6th January 2022.   The claimant took issue with some of the scores that she received.  The claimant believed this was based upon bias (either conscious or sub-conscious) to the South Armagh Policing Review which was bound up with religious belief/political opinion points and legacy issues.  The claimant had referenced that role in her answer to a question at interview.

The claimant raised her concerns internally with a grievance on 6th February 2022.  The claimant, asserting at the Tribunal, that she wished to resolve the complaint privately.  The claimant was informed on 3rd March that the grievance would not be considered as it was outside its jurisdiction.   She asked for reconsideration on 8th April.   She received the outcome of this on 29th June 2022.  It was actually before this, in May, that the claimant explored the option of bringing a Tribunal claim.  She contacted the LRA and on 25th May she was informed that there was a 3 month time limit.  An Early Conciliation Certificate was granted and she brought her claim on 26th May 2022.   This was, as acknowledged by the claimant, out of the statutory time-limit which had expired on 6th April 2022.

Outcome:

It was for the FET to determine whether it was just and equitable to extend time in this case.   They noted that the Tribunal did have discretion and it was wide and multi-factorial.   In terms of these factors, the Tribunal did not accept the claimant’s submission that the delay was ‘minor’.  The delay was nearly two months and was described as ‘significant’ by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found that the use of the internal procedures is not an explanation for delay in submitting a Tribunal claim.  Indeed, it was not logical considering that the claimant had submitted her claim prior to hearing back about her internal grievance.  The claimant also stated that she was ignorant to the law applying here.  The Tribunal did not accept that considering her intelligence and her possession of a Law degree.  The Tribunal thus found that the decision not to issue proceedings within the statutory time-limit was conscious and deliberate. This coupled with the failure to obtain advice, which she could have done through the Police Federation, meant that it was not just or equitable to extend time.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This is yet another case relating to time limits and requesting an extension.  It is true that there is more discretion when it comes to discrimination claims and the use of ‘just and equitable’.  That being said, the discretion is not untrammelled.  There are clear factors to be discussed as outlined in the case of Keeble.  In this case, the length of the delay, reasons for the delay and the claimant’s submission of ignorance of the law were not accepted by the Tribunal to extend the time.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/