Dr. Barua had been employed as a part time medical officer in Ramby Prison. In February 2005 his employers unilaterally decided to cut his wages. Dr Barua protested unsuccessfully about this move and ultimately announced, in a letter dated 25th April 2005, that he was to resign on the 31st July. Prior to quitting however, he lodged a formal grievance about the wage cuts on 27th June. His employers finally responded to this in August and duly acknowledged his grievance was well founded and an apology followed. The chain of events finally concluded when on 27th January 2006 Dr Barua made a claim to the Employment Tribunal on the grounds of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract.
In this case the two crucial pieces of legislation were The Employment Act 2002 and the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004. This legislation purports to offer an additional three month extension to the normal three month time limit for commencing proceedings after a grievance has been lodged. Justice Underhill essentially stated that the main question in this case was whether an extension was available where the grievance has been raised before the effective date of termination (E.D.T.), which in this case was 31st July 2007. The appellant contended that as the grievance was lodged prior to the E.D.T. the extension available under Regulation 15 of the 2004 Regulations should not be granted in this situation.
The appellants contended that the window of opportunity for lodging a grievance opened on 31st July and subsequently closed three months thereafter, thus meaning that the claimant’s case had run out of time. The issue of wage deductions was treated somewhat separately although the appellants felt that time started to run from the date of the final wage deduction, which was towards the end of July, and therefore this aspect of the claim was also out of time.
Judge Underhill, in delivering a verdict, said that the date before which proceedings can normally not be brought is the date upon which the cause of the action arises. He believed that although in each instance the legislation specifies a start date, be that the E.D.T. or the date of the last wage deduction, these dates were merely included in order to assist in calculating the end date rather than being a fixed starting point for a “window” of opportunity to bring a claim. Another reason forwarded by Justice Underhill for rejecting the appellant’s interpretation of the legislation was that he felt it was possible to lodge a grievance in anticipation of an action by an employer, therefore it is difficult to have a specific start date for employment cases. The judge also felt it would be unfair to deny someone the benefit of a time extension simply because they lodged a grievance before the time began to run.
Accordingly therefore the appeal was dismissed and the decision to award Dr Barua a three month extension of time was upheld, meaning that his case was within the appropriate time limits and therefore validly commenced.