Appeal No.	 EAT/222/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 May 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MR R N STRAKER

MISS S ROBINS	APPELLANT

PINKERTON SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D ROBSON
(Representative)

DGR DIRECTORSHIP
34 Raynes Road
Lee-on-Solent
Hants PO13 9AL	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON:	We have considered the submissions made to us by Mr Robson and we have considered the Notice of Appeal which was submitted on 18 January 1999.  In the context of the reasoned judgment given with the Extended Reasons and the Decision, (which was that the Applicant is not entitled to bring the proceedings to which the Originating Application relates), Mr Robson failed to satisfy us that for the appeal to proceed to a final full hearing would have any reasonable prospect of success at all.

	Quoting from the summary reasons for the main decision:

“The Tribunal first of all has to consider whether the complaints are out of time.  The fact of dismissal is in dispute, but the effective date of termination of employment is not in issue and that is 20 February 1998.  A claim is presented to a Tribunal when it is received by the Tribunal.  The Originating Application in this case was received at the Employment Tribunal on 25 August 1998.  The complaints have been presented more than three months after the expiry of the three-month time-limit.”

Paragraph 4 refers to the fact that as early as February 28 the Applicant had written to the employer claiming unfair dismissal.  As early as 7 March 1998 at the Job Centre, she completed a form.  Subsequently, nothing having happened, she met Mr Robson, who helped her draft a letter sent to the Respondent on 20 July.  The Originating Application was not sent until 18 August and it was not posted until 24 August under recorded delivery.  On those facts, the Chairman found that when an Applicant knows of his right to complain, he is under an obligation to seek information and advice about how to enforce the right.  In this case it was open to the Applicant to challenge the fairness of her dismissal and claim breach of contract during the three month period following the termination of her employment.  It was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claims in time.  Had it been the Chairman’s finding that it was not reasonably practicable for her to have done that, he states that it would nevertheless have still been his finding that the applications were not presented within a reasonable period after the expiry of the three month period.  In paragraph 7 he sets out why that is so.

	Mr Robson urges us to say that the reasons were good for the delay in that the employer was given a further opportunity to negotiate.  That was dealt with pithily by the Chairman in his Extended Reasons for refusing the application for a review.  At the end of paragraph 1 he said that entering into negotiations or being employed for less than 2 years are not grounds for delaying an application or for extending the time limit.  It may very well be that this Appellant has been badly advised but that is not a reason upon which this appeal can be allowed to go forward.  It has not got any reasonable chance of success and accordingly is dismissed.