Jones v Owen

An Employment Tribunal must determine pleaded time-limit issues which go to its jurisdiction, even where the respondent does not attend the hearing. It must consider whether a continuing series of acts or a just and equitable extension permits complaints otherwise outside the primary time limit.

Reasons may be concise, particularly after an undefended hearing, but they must identify the material findings of fact and explain why those findings establish constructive dismissal, discrimination or harassment. Reasons which do not enable the parties to know why they won or lost fail the standard in Meek [1987] IRLR 250.

The Claimant brought claims arising from her employment in Mr Jones's business, including constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, sexual harassment and monetary claims. Mr Jones did not attend the substantive Employment Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the constructive dismissal and discrimination claims and awarded compensation. The ET3 had raised limitation issues. A prior case-management order had amended the respondent's name to Mr Jones. On appeal, Mr Jones challenged the adequacy of the reasons, the Tribunal's failure to address time limits, and the identity of the employer.

1. Appeal allowed in part; relevant claims remitted for rehearing. The appeal concerning the identity of the employer failed. The earlier case-management discussion had determined that the Claimant was employed by Mr Jones and had amended the respondent's name accordingly. It was unnecessary to decide any further question about the position before a company was dissolved.

2. The Tribunal erred by failing to consider the pleaded limitation issues. Much of the material relied upon potentially pre-dated the primary three-month limit. The Tribunal had to decide whether later acts formed part of a series with earlier acts and, if necessary, whether it was just and equitable to extend time. Those issues went to jurisdiction. Mr Jones's absence did not relieve the Tribunal of that duty. The EAT could not conclude that the Tribunal would inevitably have resolved the issue in the Claimant's favour.

3. The Tribunal's reasons were also inadequate. Although a tribunal may properly give short reasons where a respondent has not attended, it had to identify the acts found to amount to fundamental breaches of contract and the acts found to constitute discrimination and harassment. The reasons did neither. They therefore did not enable the parties to understand the basis on which the claims had succeeded and did not meet the standard in Meek [1987] IRLR 250 or rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations.

4. The constructive dismissal and discrimination/harassment claims were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for rehearing. There was no appeal against the separate monetary awards, which remained standing.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal in part and remitted the constructive dismissal and discrimination/harassment claims for rehearing.
• Employment Tribunal: By judgment sent on 22 June 2012, upheld claims for constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and sexual harassment, and made compensation awards. Written reasons were sent on 27 September 2012.