Grievance.

[General Mannerheim]

Thanks for all the feedback comrades.

To go to an ET you would have to submit the application within 3 months less one day from the date of the grievance !!

From the date of the grievance resolution.
All internal grievance procedures should be fully exhausted before an ET.

Sorry Fishtank, you are wrong I have been to a Pre - Hearing Review ( PHR) and represented someone when Wankmans succeeded in getting the application struck out because it was out of date, RM took six months to carry out the procedure, however if Cedar Room wishes to take your advice who am I to give advice ??????.

I agree to wait for these muppets to carry out a full investigation will leave plenty of people out of time and grey haired.

[fishtank]

Sorry Fishtank, you are wrong I have been to a Pre - Hearing Review ( PHR) and represented someone when Wankmans succeeded in getting the application struck out because it was out of date, RM took six months to carry out the procedure, however if Cedar Room wishes to take your advice who am I to give advice ??????.

I bow to your greater wisdom Robbo.

[hantsman]

Thanks for all the feedback comrades.

To go to an ET you would have to submit the application within 3 months less one day from the date of the grievance !!

From the date of the grievance resolution.
All internal grievance procedures should be fully exhausted before an ET.

Sorry Fishtank, you are wrong I have been to a Pre - Hearing Review ( PHR) and represented someone when Wankmans succeeded in getting the application struck out because it was out of date, RM took six months to carry out the procedure, however if Cedar Room wishes to take your advice who am I to give advice ??????.

I agree to wait for these muppets to carry out a full investigation will leave plenty of people out of time and grey haired.

Have to disagree Im afraid, although you should file a grievance before you file anET1 , the ET panel are not stupid, hence why you file an ET1 before waiting for a final RM appeal.

[hantsman]

Thanks for all the feedback comrades.

To go to an ET you would have to submit the application within 3 months less one day from the date of the grievance !!

An ET does not deal with grievance's.

[fishtank]

BASIC POSITION
Time-limits for presenting complaints to employment tribunals are generally strictly enforced (see for example Dootson v Royal Mail plc, EAT on 8th July 2010).

Power to extend time usually depends on whether the Tribunal "is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable" for an application/complaint to have been presented on time (see ERA 1996 s.111 covering unfair dismissal and/or ERA 1996.s.48 covering cases of detriment short of dismissal). However in some cases, notably discrimination cases, a Tribunal's power to extend a time-limit can be exercised on a "just and equitable" basis (see for example Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s.76).

Short extensions are normally granted if the delay resulted from unforseeable postal delay, because the Tribunal office was closed or if the delay was deliberately engineered by the applicant's "opponent". They can normally only be granted if it was "not reasonably practicable for the" complaint to have been presented within the statutory time-limit although in a few cases (mainly under anti-discrimination law) a "just and equitable" rule applies. The Court of Appeal has suggested that there should be simpler and clearer rules, pending which it has laid down useful general guidelines (see Consignia plc v Sealy CA 2002 EWCA Civ 878 on 19th June 2002).

There are two time-limits which Tribunals do not have power to extend, namely:

the six month period for claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 (see Time-limits/for various applications to Employment Tribunals/Equal Pay Act claims );
the seven day period for an application for "interim relief" when an employee alleges unfair dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or activities contrary to Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.152 (see time-limits/for various applications to Employment Tribunals/interim relief on unfair dismissal ).
Until April 2009 there was an automatic 3 month extension (so as to give time for negotiation/settlement) to the normal time limits for filing a tribunal claim in circumstances where the statutory dispute resolution procedures generally required since 1st October 2004 applied. Save for transitional provisions these statutory dispute resolution procedures (contained in the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 SI 2004/752) were abolished on 6th April 2009 when the 2004 regulations lapsed (see Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures - 2009 changes/transitional provisions and notes at Disciplinary procedures/time-limits ).

The general principle is that the fact that an internal grievance or disciplinary procedure is still under way is not of itself enough to excuse late filing of a claim to an employment tribunal (see Robinson v Post Office 2000 IRLR 804, EAT, Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth CA 2002 ICR 713, CA and Fatti v Look Ahead Housing & Care Ltd, EAT case EAT/857/01 on 21st June 2002).

[hantsman]

BASIC POSITION
Time-limits for presenting complaints to employment tribunals are generally strictly enforced (see for example Dootson v Royal Mail plc, EAT on 8th July 2010).

Power to extend time usually depends on whether the Tribunal "is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable" for an application/complaint to have been presented on time (see ERA 1996 s.111 covering unfair dismissal and/or ERA 1996.s.48 covering cases of detriment short of dismissal). However in some cases, notably discrimination cases, a Tribunal's power to extend a time-limit can be exercised on a "just and equitable" basis (see for example Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s.76).

Short extensions are normally granted if the delay resulted from unforseeable postal delay, because the Tribunal office was closed or if the delay was deliberately engineered by the applicant's "opponent". They can normally only be granted if it was "not reasonably practicable for the" complaint to have been presented within the statutory time-limit although in a few cases (mainly under anti-discrimination law) a "just and equitable" rule applies. The Court of Appeal has suggested that there should be simpler and clearer rules, pending which it has laid down useful general guidelines (see Consignia plc v Sealy CA 2002 EWCA Civ 878 on 19th June 2002).

Your on the ball FT

There are two time-limits which Tribunals do not have power to extend, namely:

the six month period for claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 (see Time-limits/for various applications to Employment Tribunals/Equal Pay Act claims );
the seven day period for an application for "interim relief" when an employee alleges unfair dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or activities contrary to Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.152 (see time-limits/for various applications to Employment Tribunals/interim relief on unfair dismissal ).
Until April 2009 there was an automatic 3 month extension (so as to give time for negotiation/settlement) to the normal time limits for filing a tribunal claim in circumstances where the statutory dispute resolution procedures generally required since 1st October 2004 applied. Save for transitional provisions these statutory dispute resolution procedures (contained in the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 SI 2004/752) were abolished on 6th April 2009 when the 2004 regulations lapsed (see Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures - 2009 changes/transitional provisions and notes at Disciplinary procedures/time-limits ).

The general principle is that the fact that an internal grievance or disciplinary procedure is still under way is not of itself enough to excuse late filing of a claim to an employment tribunal (see Robinson v Post Office 2000 IRLR 804, EAT, Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth CA 2002 ICR 713, CA and Fatti v Look Ahead Housing & Care Ltd, EAT case EAT/857/01 on 21st June 2002).

Your on the ball FT

[Red Robbo]

The general principle is that the fact that an internal grievance or disciplinary procedure is still under way is not of itself enough to excuse late filing of a claim to an employment tribunal (see Robinson v Post Office 2000 IRLR 804, EAT, Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth CA 2002 ICR 713, CA and Fatti v Look Ahead Housing & Care Ltd, EAT case EAT/857/01 on 21st June 2002).
The words are the words , ??????????

[Lincox]

If someone is still going through the grievance stages, no resolution to date, and six months currently expired, and the CWU have not informed the individual that he should have filed for an ET earlier, does the individual have a just case for negligence on the part of the CWU?

[fishtank]

If someone is still going through the grievance stages, no resolution to date, and six months currently expired, and the CWU have not informed the individual that he should have filed for an ET earlier, does the individual have a just case for negligence on the part of the CWU?

Possibly....RMT certainly think so.

Failure to advise a member of their legal right to lodge a tribunal claim or explain the time limits involved could leave the Union open to legal action. The scenario in such a case is that the member who becomes ‘time barred’ attempts to sue the union in order to get some redress. The union would become the ‘guilty party’ rather than the company who for example discriminated against our member or allowed an unlawful act to happen in the first place.

[hantsman]

If someone is still going through the grievance stages, no resolution to date, and six months currently expired, and the CWU have not informed the individual that he should have filed for an ET earlier, does the individual have a just case for negligence on the part of the CWU?

They might have, but there was a case that the union delayed in applying for an ET that the RM member then found it was to late.

[Red Robbo]

If someone is still going through the grievance stages, no resolution to date, and six months currently expired, and the CWU have not informed the individual that he should have filed for an ET earlier, does the individual have a just case for negligence on the part of the CWU?

They might have, but there was a case that the union delayed in applying for an ET that the RM member then found it was to late.

Anyone being disciplined by RM would have been told by a rep about the ET procedures, those who choose to ignore that advice do so at their peril.

[Lincox]

This is not a case of being disciplined, it is a grievance against a Linos actions. The advice given so far is that no consideration can be given to going to an ET until all of Royal Mails internal procedures have been exhausted. There has been no advice that an ET application should have been put in because of timing issues, despite this matter not having been concluded internally.

[Red Robbo]

Fair enough its a grievance, many have tried taking the Union to court for not providing sound advice and lost, the Union did not ask for court costs off the member.

[Lincox]

Don,t get me wrong Red Robbo, my area rep has been very good and I hope this matter can be concluded satisfactory, but it does go against the grain to find out on a forum such as this, that I may not be able to take this matter to an independent decision maker such as an ET because of a possible failure to notify me of the correct regulations regarding time limits to submit an ET application.