Cleaner's unfair dismissal claim fails: no dismissal and claim 65 days late
A cleaner who received a final written warning but was not dismissed brought an unfair dismissal claim 65 days out of time. The tribunal found no dismissal occurred and refused to extend the deadline.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #no-dismissal
- #time-bar
- #race-discrimination
- #costs-order
- #witness-statement-issue
Key facts
- The Claimant worked as a cleaner for the Second Respondent following a TUPE transfer.
- The Claimant received a final written warning on 7 December 2021 and appealed.
- The appeal was upheld on 10 February 2022, but the Claimant was not dismissed.
- The Claimant's original ET1 in March 2022 stated he had not been dismissed.
- The Claimant's claims were presented 65 days out of time.
- The Claimant's witness statement was not read back to him due to language difficulties.
Timeline
-
TUPE transfer
The Claimant's employment transferred from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent.
-
Final written warning
The Claimant received a final written warning and was moved to a different work location.
-
Appeal meeting
The Claimant attended an appeal meeting with Mr Thomas regarding the final written warning.
-
Appeal outcome letter
Mr Thomas sent a letter upholding the final written warning; the Claimant was not dismissed.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The Claimant contacted ACAS regarding his claims.
-
First ET1 presented
The Claimant presented an ET1 against the Second Respondent, stating he had not been dismissed.
-
ET1 rejected
The ET1 was rejected due to a mismatch with the ACAS certificate.
-
Reconsideration application
The Claimant applied for reconsideration of the rejection, which was dismissed on 28 June 2022.
-
Second ET1 presented
The Claimant presented a new ET1 against both Respondents, including an unfair dismissal claim.
-
First day of hearing
Preliminary hearing on dismissal and time issues; adjourned due to witness statement issues.
-
Second day of hearing
Hearing resumed; the Claimant confirmed his witness statement after translation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the cleaner had been dismissed by his employer, and if so, whether his unfair dismissal claim was submitted within the three-month time limit.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the cleaner was not dismissed by Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited. He had received a final written warning on 7 December 2021, which was upheld on appeal on 10 February 2022, but he was never told he was dismissed. His original ET1 in March 2022 stated he had not been dismissed.
Even if there had been a dismissal, the claim was presented 65 days late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the cleaner to have issued his claim in time, and there was no just and equitable reason to extend the deadline.
Compensation: none awarded. The cleaner was ordered to pay £500 in costs for unreasonable conduct at the hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are not dismissed, you cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim — a final written warning is not a dismissal.
- Unfair dismissal claims must be presented to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination — missing this deadline by even a few days can be fatal.
- If you are unsure whether you have been dismissed, seek legal advice promptly; the time limit does not wait.
- Tribunals can order costs against a claimant who acts unreasonably, even if they are a litigant in person.
- Ensure your ET1 matches the ACAS early conciliation certificate exactly to avoid rejection and further delays.
A warning that was not a dismissal
This case highlights a common misunderstanding: a disciplinary sanction, even a final written warning, is not the same as a dismissal. The cleaner, who worked for Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited after a TUPE transfer, received a final written warning on 7 December 2021 and was moved to a different location. He appealed, and on 10 February 2022 the warning was upheld. But at no point was he told he was dismissed. In fact, his first claim form, filed in March 2022, explicitly stated he had not been dismissed.
The time limit trap
Even if there had been a dismissal, the claim was doomed by delay. The cleaner eventually presented an unfair dismissal claim on 13 July 2022 — 65 days after the three-month deadline. The tribunal found he could have issued in time: he had already contacted ACAS and filed an earlier (rejected) claim. There was no good reason for the delay, and the tribunal refused to extend time. This is a stark reminder that the three-month limit is strictly enforced.
Costs for unreasonable conduct
The tribunal also ordered the cleaner to pay £500 in costs after he behaved unreasonably at the first day of the hearing. His witness statement had not been read back to him due to language difficulties, but the tribunal found his conduct — including interrupting and refusing to engage — went beyond what was acceptable. Even litigants in person are expected to behave reasonably, and tribunals can impose costs where they do not.
What this means for similar claims
If you are disciplined but not dismissed, you cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim. If you believe you have been dismissed, act quickly — the clock starts ticking immediately. And always ensure your claim form matches the ACAS certificate, or you risk rejection and lost time. Finally, remember that tribunals have the power to award costs against unreasonable claimants, so it pays to stay calm and cooperative.
Similar cases
12-day employee: race discrimination claim dismissed as time-barred and out of jurisdiction
A senior risk manager who worked for Global Prime Partners Ltd for just 12 days had her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims thrown out after the tribunal ruled she was not an employee and her discrimination claim was over three years late.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Dismissed for unauthorised absence: race discrimination claims rejected
A former employee of John Lewis plc who was dismissed for unauthorised absence and failure to follow reporting procedures has lost her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. The tribunal also ordered her to pay £13,250 in costs.
Process and Technical Manager's out-of-time claim dismissed by tribunal
A tribunal dismissed a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination after the claimant presented his case one day late and failed to attend hearings or provide any explanation for the delay.