Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The whistleblowing detriment complaint regarding the Greenford OPL temporary vacancy in early 2023 was struck out as out of time. The tribunal found that while it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit (as the claimant was not aware of the alleged detriment until early 2024), the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period. The claimant delayed almost 2 months after learning of the detriment before commencing ACAS early conciliation, and took a further 4 weeks after early conciliation ended to present his claim, which the tribunal found objectively unreasonable given the claimant knew of applicable time limits by 12 December 2023 and was specifically advised by his union on 8 April 2024.
The second alleged detriment (dated 22 May 2022) was also struck out as out of time. The tribunal found the same time limit issues applied to this complaint pursuant to section 48 ERA. The tribunal concluded that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, and while it was not reasonably practicable to do so, the complaint was not presented within a further reasonable period.
Facts
The claimant worked for Royal Mail and applied for voluntary redundancy in April 2022 which was refused. He was on long-term sickness absence from around May 2022 suffering from depression and anxiety. He alleged two whistleblowing detriments: one on 22 May 2022 and another in early 2023 when he was not offered a temporary vacancy for the Greenford OPL role. He was not aware of the second alleged detriment until early 2024. He raised a grievance on 3 August 2022 which went through internal processes concluding in December 2023. He had trade union representation throughout. He commenced ACAS early conciliation on 20 April 2024 and filed his claim on 29 June 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the whistleblowing detriment complaints as out of time. While it found it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit (as the claimant was not aware of one alleged detriment until after the time limit expired), the tribunal found the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period. The claimant knew of applicable time limits by December 2023 and was specifically advised by his union on 8 April 2024, but delayed almost 2 months before starting early conciliation and a further 4 weeks after early conciliation ended to file his claim.
Practical note
Knowledge of time limits starts the clock for what constitutes a 'reasonable further period' even in whistleblowing cases: claimants aware they are out of time must act with particular urgency, and delays of weeks after learning of time limits will be fatal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306292/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- CCOM
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No