Claimant v The National Trust for Scotland

Claim that claimant was not provided with PPE of similar quality to permanent employees was brought considerably out of time (last occurred April 2024, claim filed March 2025). Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for delay and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds despite claimant identifying a comparable permanent employee.

Claim that claimant was told she was not entitled to join respondent's pension scheme whereas permanent employees could. Last occurred April 2024. Tribunal found claim was out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting claimant had knowledge of cause of action since April 2022 and no satisfactory explanation for delay.

Claim that claimant was obstructed from joining pension scheme (last occurrence April 2023) was struck out as claimant did not identify a permanent comparator as required under Fixed-term Employees Regulations. Tribunal also found claim out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting no reasonable prospects of success.

Claim regarding enrollment into Nest pension scheme 3 months after recommencing employment had no prospect of success as claimant had no permanent comparator as required under the Fixed-term Employees Regulations. Tribunal also found claim out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.

Claim that claimant was advised there was no budget for seasonal worker training (last occurred August 2024) had no prospect of success as claimant had no permanent comparator. Tribunal found claim out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting considerable delay and no satisfactory explanation.

Claim regarding access to training requests process for seasonal workers was bound to fail as it related to process for seasonal workers not permanent employees, so no valid comparator. Tribunal found claim out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.

Claimant's application to amend to add constructive unfair dismissal claim was refused. Tribunal found this was a substantive new claim based on facts post-dating the original ET1, was considerably out of time, had no reasonable prospect of success (claimant not employed on purported resignation date of 24 March 2025), and it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time.