Claimant v Teleperformance
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim raised outside the relevant time limit under section 103A ERA 1996. It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the statutory period. Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Claim of detriment under section 48 ERA 1996 for protected disclosure raised outside the relevant time limit. It was reasonably practicable to present within time. Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Combined with automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims - all whistleblowing claims were out of time and it was reasonably practicable to bring them within the statutory limitation period.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 111 ERA 1996 was considered on its merits and dismissed as not well-founded. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair.
Claims arising prior to 14 August 2023 were out of time and not just and equitable to extend. Claims after that date were in time but dismissed as not well-founded on the merits.
Claims arising prior to 14 August 2023 were out of time and not just and equitable to extend under section 123 EQA 2010. Claims after that date were in time but dismissed as not well-founded.
Equal pay claim was agreed to be considered at a separate hearing. A separate order has been made in relation to this claim.
Facts
Mrs Naylor brought multiple claims against Teleperformance including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detriment for protected disclosures, ordinary unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination. She also raised an equal pay claim to be heard separately. She represented herself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The whistleblowing claims (automatic unfair dismissal and detriment) were out of time and it was reasonably practicable to bring them within time. Discrimination claims prior to 14 August 2023 were out of time and not just and equitable to extend. The remaining claims (ordinary unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after 14 August 2023) were dismissed as not well-founded on their merits.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants face significant hurdles with time limits: the tribunal strictly applied both the reasonably practicable test for whistleblowing claims and the just and equitable test for discrimination claims, resulting in jurisdictional dismissal of most claims before reaching their merits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002562/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Teleperformance
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No