2.

(i)

At the Case Management Discussion before me on 27 April 2009 (when the claimant was represented not by Mr Clements, but by another solicitor in the same firm) it was agreed that the claim was out-of-time and that the issue for the tribunal was whether the time-limit for presenting the claim should be extended.

(ii)

At 5.22 pm on the eve of the hearing, faxes were received from Mr Clements by the respondent company’s solicitors and the Office of the Tribunals which re-opened the issue of whether the claim was out-of-time. It was submitted that this was the case on the basis that the time-limit was extended by three months by virtue of Regulations 15(1)(b) and (3) of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. These provisions, however, deal with grievance, not dismissal and disciplinary procedures, to which Regulation 15(1)(a) and (2) applies.

(iii)

It had been agreed at the Case Management Discussion of 27 April 2009 that the claimant could not avail of any extension of time under the 2004 Regulations. The respondent company’s case was that he had resigned, they did not follow any dismissal or disciplinary procedures, and therefore the claimant could not have had reasonable grounds for believing that any such procedure was being followed in respect of matters that consisted of or included the substances of his complaint. The grievance procedure provisions do not assist the claimant for it has never been his case that he was constructively dismissed.

(iv)

I am therefore satisfied that the original three month time-limit applies in this case and that on that basis the claim is out of time unless extended. The ‘not reasonably practicable’ exception is much stricter than the ‘just and equitable’ exception found in other areas of employment law, notably discrimination law.

3.

(i)

The facts in this case can be briefly stated.

After the termination of his employment on 18 August 2009, the claimant went to the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) on the Shankill Road. They wrote letters on his behalf to the respondent company, an initial one on 20 August 2008, and a further one on 7 October 2008. The respondent company replied to the latter, on 10 October 2008. It did not reply to the earlier letter.

(ii)

Although the claimant at the outset believed that the CAB were dealing with this matter on his behalf, it is clear that it was also his intention to instruct a solicitor to take proceedings on his behalf. He did this a day or so before his claim form was presented to the tribunal.

(iii)

There is no evidence before the tribunal as to what, if anything, happened or was done in the period from mid-October 2008, when the employer’s reply was received, until 8 December 2008, when the claim was present.

The claimant very honestly conceded that there was no factor, such as illness, which prevented him making his claim.

This absence of evidence, together with the claimant’s awareness that he might have to bring proceedings to assert his legal rights, seems to me to be fatal to his case. I am therefore unable to find that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim within the three month time-limit.