Buddy says: If the employee had reasonable grounds for believing that a dismissal procedure was being followed, in respect of the matters that include the substance of the tribunal claim, then yes the employee can rely on the three month extension of time, and the claim will be in time.

Employer information: Where an employee brings a claim under one of the jurisdictions listed in Schedule 3 to the Employment Act 2002, such as unfair dismissal, and a statutory dismissal or disciplinary procedure applies, the normal time limit will be increased by three months if, when the time limit expired, the employee had reasonable grounds for believing that a dismissal or disciplinary procedure (whether statutory or otherwise) was being followed in respect of matters that consisted of or included the substance of the tribunal complaint (regulation 15(1), Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (Dispute Resolution Regulations)).

In the recent case of Codemasters Software Company Limited v Wong, the employee appealed his dismissal almost three months after it, based on his solicitor's advice. Codemasters internal procedures specified that any appeal against dismissal had to be brought within 5 days of the dismissal, so it would not consider Mr Wong's appeal.

Mr Wong then brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal, almost four months after the dismissal and Codemasters claimed the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was brought almost a month late. The tribunal found that Mr Wong held an honest belief that an appeal procedure (that is, part of a disciplinary and dismissal procedure) was being followed, and hence the tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Codemasters appealed, but the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. The EAT broadly agreed with Codemasters that a delay of almost three months before putting in an internal appeal was not reasonable, however this was not the relevant question in this case. So long as there was no challenge to the tribunal's finding that Mr Wong was proceeding pursuant to his solicitor’s advice and that the advice was that the statute would be complied with by his presentation of an appeal within that time, there was no abuse of the unreasonable delay provision.