Welcome back to this week’s case, if you missed our last case you can click here to read it. This week, we examine a case of Reynolds v Abel Estate Agents, where the Claimant initially failed to complete the mandatory ACAS Early Conciliation (EC) procedure before filing her claims at the Employment Tribunal (ET).
Background
During proceedings, the Respondent identified a procedural issue with the Claimant’s claim. The Claimant had failed to complete EC before submitting their claim against the Respondent.
This issue became critical after the tribunal initially overlooked the EC omission, accepted the claim, and allowed it to proceed. The Tribunal allowed the Claimant to amend her claim to re-submit the same section 48 claims, which corrected the initial procedural error.
The Respondents appealed, arguing that the claims should have been dismissed entirely for lack of jurisdiction and that the tribunal’s reliance on Rule 12 was procedurally flawed. Rule 12 allows the tribunal to reject claims at the initial stage for failing to meet EC requirements.
The EAT’s Decision
The EAT agreed with the Respondents, concluding that the tribunal had erred in its application of Rule 12. The EAT concluded that Rule 12 is only applicable at the preliminary stage before a claim is officially accepted by the tribunal. Since the tribunal had already accepted the Claimant’s claims and allowed them to proceed, Rule 12 could no longer be used to reject them.
The EAT stated that the failure to comply with section 18A(8) (the EC requirement) did not necessitate the tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the claims. Although section 18A(8) prohibits a claim without a ACAS certificate, it does not impact the tribunal’s ability to take judgment on a claim that has already been presented and accepted.
The EAT asserted that a failure to complete EC is a procedural defect, not a jurisdictional bar. A claim cannot be dismissed for failing to comply with the EC requirements once the tribunal accepted it.
The EAT acknowledged the limited practical impact of the tribunal allowing the Claimant to amend her claims, as the amendment effectively achieved the same outcome as completing EC. The procedural error in the tribunal’s reliance on Rule 12 and its subsequent handling of the claim required correction.
Takeaway Points
This case emphasises the need to address EC issues early to avoid unnecessary disputes and appeals.
The ET remains competent to hear claims even where EC requirements are not met. Procedural errors do not invalidate claims but may be addressed through other procedures, such as allowing amendments or directing claimants to complete conciliation.
Allowing Claimants to amend claims to remedy procedural defects, such as submitting an EC certificate late is permissible. However, the tribunal must consider such situations carefully and ensure that procedural rules are followed correctly.
Leave A Comment