This case was an appeal relating to a finding of unfair dismissal at the first-instance Employment Tribunal.  The appeal centred upon time limits with the first-instance Tribunal finding that it had been brought within time and it rejected the contention that it had not been reasonably practicable to submit it earlier than when it was.

The claimant’s ET1 stated her employment ended on 29th November 2017.   The ET3 of the respondent stated they agreed with the start and end dates of employment stated in the ET1, yet the text of the response stated that the limitation date was 26th April 2018 yet the ET1 was only issued on 27th April 2018 – that being one day out of time when the conciliation extension was factored in.  At the Tribunal the claimant contended that the effective date of termination was actually 30th November 2017 (this date was put in the chronology included in the ET1).

The EAT outlined the rules on time limits especially when it is to be extended under Section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Article 249B of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 in NI) to factor in conciliation.  It was held that if the effective date of termination was 30th November as found by the Tribunal at first instance then the normal three month rule would mean it expires on 28th February 2018. When it comes to the conciliation extension period Day A for the purposes of Section 207B is the 26th February 2018 then Day B (the end of the time limit) will be 26th March 2018 (that being the date upon which the certificate regarding conciliation had been received).  It is then one month from that date which will be the time limit to be considered by the Tribunal.   This then means that the time limit for the presentation of the ET1 was 26th April 2018.  Accordingly, even taking the 30th November as the effective date of termination the ET1 had to be presented on or before 26th April 2018.   Factoring in that there was no cross-appeal by the claimant on the point of reasonably practicability of presenting the ET1 it was held that the respondent’s appeal was to be upheld and that the finding of unfair dismissal was overturned.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the vagaries that exist with allowing the extension when there has been an attempt at conciliation (which has recently been brought into NI procedure).   The EAT was understanding of the claimant’s position who was self-representing and stated that she was greatly confused by this point of law.  The position when it comes to conciliation allows for an extension within the remit of Article 249B of the 1996 Order and claimants must be aware of it when presenting their ET1 but respondents must also be cognisant of it to determine whether limitation periods apply as it may lead to an easier defence rather than having to go through a substantive hearing (or as seen in this case an appeal).
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/rathbone-and-roche-ltd-v-ms-claudia-madureira-ukeat-0185-19-rn