Time limit runs from act giving rise to detriment

Mark Minns, 19 October 2009

This case is important when considering the date from which the time limit to submit a worker's claim for detriment runs.

Here, the EAT held that an employment judge had erred in finding that a worker's claim for detriment had been presented within the three month time limit on the basis that the judge has failed to separate the act giving rise to detriment from the consequences that followed.

In this case, Mr Hickinson was employed by Sodexo Limited (Sodexo) and under a contract between Sodexo and Unilever UK Plc (Unilever), he worked in security at Unilever’s site. On 4 July 2008 Unilever asked that Mr Hickinson be immediately removed from its site after he revealed that he had been making covert recordings of workers' activities. Unable to find him further work, Sodexo dismissed Mr Hickinson on 2 August 2008.

After his appeal against dismissal was rejected, he commenced tribunal proceedings on 6 October 2008. The employment judge held that it was unrealistic to isolate the act of the removal from site from the dismissal four weeks later and as such, Mr Hickinson’s claim had been presented in time.

However, this was overturned by the EAT on appeal holding that the employment judge should have found that the act giving rise to the detriment was Unilever's action of 4 July 2008 and as such, the claim had been presented out of time.

This case highlights the need to be extra vigilant when calculating time limits to ensure that a worker's claim is presented in time.

Unilever UK plc v Hickinson (1) and Sodexo (2) UKEAT/0192/09