Claimant v ABM Facility Services UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing addressed only the time limit issue under s.111 ERA 1996. The tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, determining it was not reasonably practicable to present within the primary time limit due to ACAS confusion, and the further period was reasonable. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined.
Facts
Claimant's employment terminated 30.11.23. He contacted ACAS on 8.2.24 believing this initiated his tribunal claim and that ACAS and the ET were the same organisation. ACAS issued three certificates under different references (12.2.24, 14.6.24, 18.6.24) with conflicting communications about deadlines and ongoing conciliation. Claimant relied on ACAS and his trade union for guidance. He was also dealing with significant personal stress from divorce proceedings. He presented his ET claim on 19.6.24, one day after receiving the final ACAS certificate.
Decision
The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim within the three-month time limit. ACAS caused significant confusion through multiple conflicting communications and certificates. The claimant, as a litigant in person unfamiliar with the process, relied on ACAS guidance and was misled. Presenting the claim within one day of the final ACAS certificate was a reasonable further period. The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Administrative confusion by ACAS, particularly multiple conflicting certificates and unclear guidance to unrepresented claimants, can make it not reasonably practicable to meet the primary time limit for unfair dismissal claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004199/2024
- Decision date
- 26 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No