Cases1305726/2023

Claimant v Fortel Services Limited

3 May 2024Before Employment Judge MaxwellBirminghamhybrid

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Preliminary hearing to determine whether claims should be struck out on time limit grounds. Tribunal refused to strike out, finding claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing employment was continuous between associated employers and that he had genuine belief his employment continued until July 2023, making it not reasonably practicable to claim earlier.

Redundancy Paynot determined

As with unfair dismissal, tribunal refused strike-out on time limit grounds. Claimant may have reasonable prospects of establishing his belief in employment continuity between associated employers meant it was not reasonably practicable to claim within primary time limit.

Facts

Claimant worked for First Respondent as security supervisor for 15+ years. On 4 January 2023 he was told he was being transferred to Second Respondent (HRAI) without notice or paperwork. He believed his employment was continuous but was dismissed by Second Respondent on 7 July 2023 for lack of work. First Respondent produced unsigned resignation letter dated 28 October 2022 which claimant says is fabricated. Claimant filed ET1 on 29 August 2023 after ACAS contact on 11 July 2023.

Decision

Tribunal refused to strike out unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims on time limit grounds. Judge found claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing the two respondents were associated employers under ERA s.231 and that his genuine belief in employment continuity made it not reasonably practicable to claim earlier. Claims permitted to proceed to full hearing.

Practical note

A claimant's genuine and reasonable belief that their employment continued between employers (even if legally incorrect about associated employer status) may make it not reasonably practicable to claim within primary time limits, preventing strike-out on limitation grounds.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.218ERA 1996 s.231

Case details

Case number
1305726/2023
Decision date
3 May 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
security supervisor
Service
15 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No