Call Us
08000 224 224
Summer holiday for all
Spell it out
Time's up?
Collective v individual
Human error - who is to blame?
New Rules OK?
Teachers' action ruled lawful
Howlett Marine Services Limited-v Bowlam & Others [2001] IRLR 201
The recent case of Howlett Marine Services Limited v Bowlam & Others, considered the application of the statutory time limit in claims for protected awards where the employer has failed to consult over collective redundancies. A complaint has to be made within three months beginning with the last day of the protected period, unless it is not reasonably practicable for the applications to be presented within that period.
In Howlett, the tribunal found in favour of the employees and protective awards were made. The employers appealed. The EAT dismissed the appeal. The employer then failed to pay the employees for any part of the protected periods and the employees made a further application to the Tribunal. The question at the second Tribunal hearing was whether the applications had been presented in time. The Tribunal decided that it was not reasonably practicable for the applications to be presented within three months but that they had been presented within a further reasonable period and therefore that they had jurisdiction to hear the complaints. The employers appealed again.
The EAT stated that it was not reasonable for the applicants to present their complaints in circumstances where the protective awards were not made till after the period had expired. It was reasonable for them to delay presenting their complaints until the employers appeal had been disposed of and the written decision of the EAT received and to give further time so that the recoupment notices could be ascertained. Whilst the complaints could have been presented earlier, the existence of the above factors made it reasonable to delay the presentation.
Advisers should be careful to ensure that the primary time limit of three months is complied with but Howlett will be a helpful case where they cannot. It is important to remember that the tribunal has a discretion to decide whether the delay is reasonable.