Corresponding date

Where a claimant has to lodge their tribunal claim one month after the date of receiving their Acas Early Conciliation (EC) certificate, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in Tanveer v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd held that the time period ended on the corresponding date the following month.

Basic facts

After being dismissed on 20 March 2015, Mr Tanveer instructed solicitors to make an unfair dismissal claim on his behalf. They contacted Acas on 17 June 2015 in accordance with EC requirements, and duly received an EC notification. However, when they realised they had provided the wrong name and address for the respondent company they submitted a further EC notification the next day on 18 June.

The company made clear that it was not interested in EC and Acas e-mailed the first EC certificate to Mr Tanveer’s solicitors on 30 June, relating to the EC notification of 18 June. Acas then sent a second certificate on 2 July which related to the EC notification of 17 June. However, as the solicitors thought that the second certificate related to the 18 June notification, they thought that the claim did not have to be presented until 2 August 2015 although they lodged it on 31 July. The company argued that the claim was one day out of time.

Relevant law

Section 207B of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996 extends the time limit for lodging an employment tribunal claim to allow for early conciliation. In doing so the clock stops for the period of EC which begins when Acas is contacted (Day A) and ends when the EC Certificate is received (Day B). Under section 207B(4) where the normal time limit for lodging a claim falls between Day A and one month after Day B the time limit for lodging a claim is extended to one month after Day B.

Tribunal decision

A preliminary hearing was held at which the tribunal had to determine if the claim was lodged in time. The tribunal considered the period in question which started on 18 June 2015 (Day A) and ended a month after on Day B (30 June 2015). The issue was: what was “one month after”? Noting that the extension of time allowed by the EC provisions was one month, the tribunal decided that this meant a calendar month. As such, time expired on 30 July with the result that the claim was presented one day out of time.

Mr Tanveer argued that the tribunal should allow him to amend his claim form to refer to the second certificate so that time could be extended to 2 August. The tribunal rejected this as the respondent company details in the claim form did not match those in the second certificate and a whole series of amendments would be needed to try to unravel the inaccuracies which was not a good use of judicial time. The tribunal also refused to extend the time limit for his unfair dismissal on the basis that it had been reasonably practicable for Mr Tanveer to present the claim in time.

Mr Tanveer appealed arguing that, as section 207B(4) stated that time expires one month after Day B, one month started on 1 July and therefore ended on 31 July.

EAT decision

The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule governing time periods, known as the “corresponding date rule” is simple and well established. Where the relevant period is a month (or a specified number of months) after the giving of a notice or other specific event, the relevant time period ends on the corresponding date the following month (or specified number of months).

In this case, as the EC Certificate was issued on 30 June one month after was 30 July which meant that Mr Tanveer’s claim was lodged one day out of time.