EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
The First Respondent was employed by the Second Respondent in security at the premises of the Appellant. The Appellant required the Second Respondent to remove the First Respondent after he was discovered making covert recordings of the Appellant’s staff. The Second Respondent did not have an alternative position for the First Respondent and dismissed him. The First Respondent alleged he had been subjected to a detriment by the Appellant contrary to s.48(1B) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He made his complaint to the ET more than three months after the Appellant required his removal from site but less than three months after his dismissal by the Second Respondent.
Held: his complaint was out of time. The detriment was the requirement of removal and the subsequent dismissal by the Second Respondent could not be said either to be an act or deliberate failure to act by the Appellant or part of a continuing act.
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0192 – 09 – 2406
Links:
Employment
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375926
