Employment tribunal rules on early conciliation requirements

21 Jan 2025Court Report

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled on the necessity of early conciliation in employment claims

Employment tribunal rules on early conciliation requirements

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Others vs Elizabeth Reynolds, addressing the procedural requirements for early conciliation in employment disputes. The decision, handed down by the Honourable Mr Justice Swift, clarifies the implications of failing to comply with early conciliation requirements under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Elizabeth Reynolds, the claimant, had presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal without first engaging in the mandatory early conciliation process with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). The Tribunal initially failed to identify this procedural oversight and accepted her claim. However, during a subsequent case management hearing, the respondents argued that the claim should be rejected due to this non-compliance.

The Employment Tribunal initially rejected Reynolds' claim but allowed her to amend it to re-commence identical claims. Upon appeal, the EAT concluded that the Tribunal had erred in its decision to reject the claim outright. The EAT determined that the Tribunal should have considered whether to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction or strike it out under procedural rules.

In its judgment, the EAT referenced the case of Clark v Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd [2023] ICR 1169, which provided guidance on handling claims presented without compliance with early conciliation requirements. The EAT concluded that the failure to engage in early conciliation did not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the case.

The ruling emphasised that the early conciliation process is intended to facilitate settlement opportunities before formal proceedings commence, but non-compliance does not automatically nullify the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The EAT remitted Reynolds' claims back to the Employment Tribunal for consideration on their merits.

This decision has significant implications for employment law practitioners, particularly regarding the procedural handling of claims and the importance of early conciliation. It underscores the necessity for claimants to engage with ACAS before initiating proceedings, while also highlighting the Tribunal's discretion in handling procedural errors.

The case serves as a reminder of the balance between procedural compliance and access to justice, ensuring that technicalities do not unduly hinder genuine claims. Practitioners should be mindful of these requirements when advising clients on employment disputes.