EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements
Six weeks after the Claimant’s dismissal by the Respondent, she attended a meeting with management and her union officer. Further information about her selection for redundancy was promised and was forthcoming. On advice from her union, the Claimant launched a grievance. She did so within the three-month limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim, but the Respondent contended that as she had been dismissed it was under no obligation to respond to a grievance. Although in a sense this was an appeal to the respondent against her dismissal, the only statutory question when she submitted a claim and sought the benefit of the three-month extension to the primary limitation period was whether she reasonably believed that a dismissal procedure was being followed. As a matter of construction of the grievance letter and appreciation of the oral evidence she gave, the Tribunal had wrongly focused on whether there was an appeal and was wrong to conclude that she did not reasonably believe that a procedure was being followed. The appeal against that judgement was allowed.
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0090 – 07 – 2103, UKEAT/0090/07/DM
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253443