Claimant v Vinci Construction Terrassement UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal (based on alleged protected disclosures/whistleblowing) was struck out because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim in time. The claimant was aware at the time of resignation that she was unhappy with the employer's actions, had engaged with ACAS within the primary time period (though on different issues), and with reasonable diligence could have discovered her employment rights and time limits.
The claim for ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment with the respondent (employed only from 27 January 2022 to 5 August 2022, approximately 6 months). The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The claimant brought a claim described as 'personal data processing' under section 8.1 of the ET1. The tribunal dismissed this claim because there is no jurisdiction for the Employment Tribunal to hear claims of this nature. Data protection matters fall outside the tribunal's remit.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Surface Water and Flood risk discipline lead from January to August 2022 (approximately 6 months). She resigned on 29 July 2022, believing the respondent had breached her contract and that she had made protected disclosures about 'illegal alteration of documents'. Following resignation, she pursued data protection and tax issues with ACAS, ICO, HMRC, and the Information Ombudsman from October 2022 to August 2023. She did not register for ACAS Early Conciliation regarding unfair dismissal until November 2023 and filed her ET1 on 2 December 2023, over 13 months after her last day of employment.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all three claims. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant had less than two years' service. The automatic unfair dismissal claim (whistleblowing) was dismissed as out of time—the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim within the primary three-month time limit, as she was computer-literate, had already engaged with ACAS during the relevant period, and could with reasonable diligence have discovered her employment rights. The 'personal data processing' claim was dismissed as the tribunal has no jurisdiction over such claims.
Practical note
A claimant's focus on parallel complaints (data protection, tax issues) with other agencies does not excuse failure to bring an Employment Tribunal claim in time if they could with reasonable diligence have discovered their employment rights and the applicable time limits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308530/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Surface Water and Flood risk discipline lead
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No