At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON
MR T S BATHO
MRS P TURNER OBE
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON
MR JUSTICE MORISON: The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mr Hayes has an arguable ground of appeal from the unanimous decision of an industrial tribunal held at London (North) and entered in the register on 1 February 1994.
The issue before the industrial tribunal was whether, on the facts, the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Hayes complaint of unfair dismissal brought against his former employers, Harrods Limited.
The facts are that Mr Hayes had had a period of 24 years of continuous service, first with General Navigation and Commerce Limited and then from 1 February 1993, with Harrods Limited. He was a long serving employee, engaged as a shipping manager. On 16 April 1993, he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and treated in a way which, in our view, was likely to have given rise to a finding of unfair dismissal. He was handed a letter on that date which said that his employment would terminate with effect from 16 April, although it also said that he would be paid up to and including 30 April 1993. It was the latter date which the industrial tribunal found to be the effective date of termination, although I have to say, for my part, I would have been inclined, in any event, to have viewed the earlier date as being the correct date.
Assuming the later date was correct, the IT1 had to be presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, namely, 30 April 1993. The day with which the period begins is to be included and, therefore, 30 April is the first day of the period. Month means calendar month. The period before the end of which the application has to be lodged started on 30 April and ended, therefore, on 29 July, three months later and there is an authority of the Employment Appeal Tribunal called Cambridge University v Murray, reported at [1993] ICR 460 at page 462 at letter F, which makes this clear.
The IT1 was dated 29 July but was presented to the Industrial Tribunal on July 30, which is one day out of time. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, had to consider whether, what has been described as the "escape clause" applied, namely, whether it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the application to be presented before the end of the period of three months. The question is "whether it was reasonably feasible to present the complaint to the industrial tribunal within the relevant three months" and for that there is an authority in the Court of Appeal called [Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372. Having reviewed the evidence, the Industrial Tribunal decided that it was reasonably feasible. The matters which weighed with them were these: firstly, the seniority and capability of Mr Hayes - he is an articulate and senior employee. Secondly, he had consulted the CAB within a matter of days of receiving the dismissal letter and he was told of the availability of a remedy at an industrial tribunal. Thirdly, he discovered in early July that there was a time limit for presenting applications, as a result of a discussion with ACAS who gave him a booklet and, fourthly, he had also visited the Job Centre where, as a matter of common knowledge, posters are displayed to assist people who are applying to the Industrial Tribunals and where information as to when an application should be presented (and I quote, using the Tribunal's decision) "can be obtained".
The Industrial Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable or feasible for Mr Hayes to have ascertained the time-limit either from ACAS or from the Job Centre and they rejected his suggestion that it was reasonable for him to wait until he had got another job, which he did at the end of June 1993, before starting industrial tribunal proceedings.
It seems to us that the approach of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be faulted and we are satisfied that there is no arguable ground of appeal and, therefore, we should dismiss it. But that said, as we have already indicated during the course of this very short hearing, we do think that the way that this long-serving employee was treated, was less than correct and it is to be hoped that the personnel policy practices of this company are greatly improved, so that employees are treated with the respect with which they deserve.