T Mitchell v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 4102871/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 2023 |
| Date | 11 January 2023 |
| Published date | 20 January 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4102871/2022 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
ETZ4(WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4102871/2022 Preliminary Hearing (Open) at Dundee on 13 and 14
December 2022
Employment Judge: M A Macleod
10
Tracy Mitchell Claimant
Represented by
Mr D Milne
Advocate
15
Royal Mail Group Limited Respondent
Represented by
Ms N Moscardini
20
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
(1) The claimant is and was at the material time a disabled person within
the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, in respect of ADHD
30
and Anxiety;
(2) The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, being time-barred;
(3) The claimant’s complaints of discrimination, insofar as relating to
allegations of acts on 11 September 2021, 1 February 2022 and 13 May
35
2022 are allowed to proceed, on the basis that they are not time-barred
as they form part of a continuing series of acts; and
(4) The remaining complaints made by the claimant are dismissed for
want of jurisdiction, being time-barred.
4102871/22 Page 2
REASONS
1. The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 20 May
2022 in which she complained that she had been unfairly dismissed and
5
discriminated against on the grounds of disability by the respondent.
2. The respondent submitted an ET3 in which they resisted all claims made
by the claimant, and argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to
hear the claims on the basis that they had been presented out of time.
They also denied that the claimant was a disabled person within the
10
meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time.
3. A Preliminary Hearing took place on 13 and 14 December 2022 in order
to determine the preliminary issues arising in this case, at the
Employment Tribunal Office in Dundee.
4. The claimant was represented by Mr D Milne, Advocate, and the
15
respondent by Ms N Moscardini, Solicitor.
5. A difficulty arose at the outset of the Hearing when it became apparent
that the Joint Bundle of Productions had not been received by the
Tribunal. Inquiries were made of the DX Office in order to establish
whether the documents had arrived there, but the clerk confirmed that
20
they had not. In the Note following Preliminary Hearing of 28 September
2022, the Tribunal had recorded, at paragraph 7:
“The parties agreed that they will, by no later than 21 days prior to the
Preliminary Hearing, send to each other a list of the documents upon
which they intend to rely, together with a copy of those documents; and
25
that they will, by no later than 7 days prior to the Preliminary Hearing,
finalise and agree a Joint Bundle of Documents. The respondent will take
responsibility for the production of the appropriate number of copies to the
Tribunal no later than 3 working days prior to the Preliminary Hearing.”
6. It was regrettable that the productions were not available in paper form.
30
However, I had access to an electronic version of the productions and
4102871/22 Page 3
therefore took a laptop to the bench in order to have the appropriate page
available while being referred to, and the clerk to the Tribunal kindly made
a copy of the available bundle provided in order to ensure that the witness
table was equipped with the productions.
7. The issues for determination by the Tribunal were set out in the earlier
5
Note, and are repeated here for ease of reference:
(1) whether the claimant is, or was at the material time, a disabled
person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010; and
(2) whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear any or all of the
claims presented by the claimant on the grounds of time bar.
10
8. The claimant gave evidence on her own behalf, being questioned at
considerable length in chief in particular. Submissions were thereafter
heard on 14 December.
9. Based on the evidence led and the information provided, the Tribunal was
able to find the following facts admitted or proved.
15
Findings in Fact
10. The claimant, whose date of birth is 11 August 1985, commenced
employment as a postwoman (or Operational Postal Grade)(“OPG”) on 3
September 2019. She was initially based in the Dundee East delivery
office, and transferred to the Forfar delivery office prior to the termination
20
of her employment.
11. The claimant’s employment was terminated as at 1 February 2022,
without notice. The letter of dismissal was produced (135) and stated that
the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was due to her having breached
business standards and breached mail integrity. It was expressly stated in
25
the letter of dismissal that the last day of her service with the respondent
was to be 1 February 2022. She was given the right to appeal against the
decision to dismiss her.
To continue reading
Request your trial