Claimant v Thames Water Utilities Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found the effective date of termination was 23 September 2022, making the claim out of time. Claimant failed to satisfy the tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary time limit. The claimant commenced early conciliation only six days late, was working full-time from 3 October 2022, and any ignorance of time limits or mistake about the termination date was not reasonable. The claim was accordingly dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds in respect of the alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal to 24 February 2023. Despite the absence of a good reason for the delay, the minimal six-day delay, clear balance of prejudice in favour of the claimant, and the claimant's difficult personal circumstances (tragic double bereavement in March 2022, raising three young children alone, having been on antidepressants) outweighed the factors against extension. The claim relating to the dismissal will proceed to final hearing. Pre-dismissal discrimination allegations were not given a time extension as standalone claims due to much longer delays (ranging from six weeks to nearly two years) and lack of explanation. However, those pre-dismissal matters may still succeed if found at final hearing to be part of a continuing course of conduct culminating in the dismissal.
Facts
The claimant, a Black African (Zimbabwean) dual skilled technician, worked for Thames Water from July 2017 until September 2022. He alleged multiple acts of race discrimination between February 2021 and August 2022, including a colleague displaying an effigy of a Black man hanging from a noose, wrongful gross misconduct investigation, harassment during compassionate leave in Zimbabwe following a tragic double bereavement (losing his wife and unborn child in March 2022), and refusal to transfer depots. He resigned on 29 August 2022, alleging constructive dismissal. A dispute arose over whether his employment ended on 23 September 2022 (respondent's position, based on agreed shortened notice) or 30 September 2022 (claimant's position, based on contractual notice period). The claimant commenced ACAS early conciliation on 28 December 2022, potentially six days outside the limitation period if the respondent's date was correct.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant's employment ended on 23 September 2022, making both claims prima facie out of time. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time—the six-day delay was minimal, the claimant was working full-time shortly after, and any ignorance or mistake about time limits was unreasonable. However, time was extended on just and equitable grounds for the race discrimination claim relating to the alleged constructive dismissal, given the minimal delay, clear balance of prejudice favouring the claimant, and his difficult personal circumstances. Pre-dismissal discrimination claims were not given a standalone time extension but may proceed if proven at final hearing to form part of a continuing course of conduct.
Practical note
A minimal delay of six days may be fatal to an unfair dismissal claim under the strict 'not reasonably practicable' test, but sufficient to permit extension under the more flexible 'just and equitable' test for discrimination claims, particularly where the claimant faced significant personal difficulties and there is no forensic prejudice to the respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302106/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- dual skilled technician
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No