The claimant was employed by the respondent as a security warden at Hillsborough Castle.  There was a requirement from Hillsborough Castle to have security on site at all times.  The central issue in the case related to ‘shift disturbance allowance’, which was referred to in the company handbook and designed to provide an additional sum for working unsociable hours.  The claimant, and others at Hillsborough Castle, was not receiving this sum and after action from his Trade Union it was then brought into effect  from the 1st August 2016.  The claimant had become aware that his colleagues working at the Tower of London received back-pay in terms of the ‘shift disturbance allowance’.

The claimant resigned from his employment in March 2018 and in October 2018 he was made aware from a colleague who still worked at Hillsborough Castle that they had then received the back-pay.  The respondent stated that this did not apply to him as the agreement was made after he had ceased his employment.

The claimant applied for the back-pay, alleging that it was an unlawful deduction from wages.  The issue for the Tribunal was whether this claim could be heard or if it fell outside the normal 3-month time limit.  The Tribunal noted that for claims relating to unlawful deductions from wages the claim, in accordance with Article 55(2)(a) of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996, must be presented to the tribunal before the end of a period of three months beginning with the date of payment of wages from which the deduction was made.  Where it relates to a series of deductions, it then applies to whenever the last deduction was made.  In terms of when time began to run, the Tribunal held that it was from 29th October 2018, when he was made aware of it by his ex-colleague and, as he presented his claim on 30th January 2019, he was one day out of time.

The Tribunal next considered whether or not it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring his claim within the time limit.   They held that it was well settled that it was a question of fact and a tribunal cannot simply state that it has a discretion to extend time.  The claimant sought to rely upon his ignorance of the law and procedure as to why time should be extended.  Despite the short nature of the delay in presenting the claim, it was held that time would not be extended on the basis that the claimant was made aware of the three-month time limit from both the Labour Relations Agency and his solicitors.  As a result, the claim was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

It seems that the tumultuous times for the Royal Family are not only contained to the decision of Harry and Meghan to relocate!  It is also clear that there are employment issues that have come across their residence in Northern Ireland.  In terms of practical lessons coming out of this case, it demonstrates to claimants the difficulty in extending time, even if the time limit is missed by the most narrow of margins.

The question is not how long the claimant is out of time but rather whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within time.  This pushes the emphasis onto the advice that may have been received by the claimant, as was fundamental in this case.