Employment Tribunals Act 1996: EAT's Landmark Decision on Joint Early Conciliation Certificates in De Mota v. ADR Network & Anor

Introduction

De Mota v. ADR Network & Anor ([2018] ICR D6) is a seminal case adjudicated by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on September 13, 2017. The case centers around the application and interpretation of the early conciliation provisions under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ET Act). The appellant, Mr. Adilson Vilhete Claro de Mota, challenged the Employment Tribunal's (ET) decision to strike out his claims against two respondents—ADR Network (a trading name for PPF Group Limited) and The Co-operative Group (Co-operative Group Limited)—on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 18A of the ET Act.

The key issues revolved around whether the appellant correctly followed the procedure for early conciliation when initiating claims against multiple respondents and whether a single early conciliation certificate sufficed for such scenarios.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Judge initially struck out the claimant's case, asserting that Mr. De Mota failed to comply with the early conciliation requirements stipulated in Section 18A of the ET Act. Specifically, the judge held that the claimant did not provide separate early conciliation certificates for each respondent, thereby lacking the standing to proceed with the claims.

The claimant appealed this decision to the EAT, contending that the issuance of a single early conciliation certificate encompassing both respondents should be deemed sufficient. The EAT, presided over by His Honour Judge David Richardson, overturned the ET's decision, emphasizing the lack of legislative intent to rigidly enforce the requirement of separate certificates for multiple respondents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the ET for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed several precedents to contextualize and support the decision:

Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] ICR 252
Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd [2016] ICR 445
Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust [2016] ICR 543
Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan [2017] ICR 73

These cases were instrumental in shaping the EAT's understanding of the early conciliation process, particularly regarding the flexibility and purpose behind the procedural requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The EAT underscored that the primary objective of early conciliation under Section 18A is to provide a structured opportunity for conciliation, rather than to enforce strict procedural adherence that could hinder access to justice. The court highlighted the following key points:

Purpose of Early Conciliation: Emphasized that early conciliation is meant to facilitate a voluntary and confidential negotiation process, not to serve as a gatekeeping mechanism to limit access to tribunals.
Flexibility in Certificate Issuance: Asserted that the requirement for separate early conciliation certificates for each respondent should not be interpreted rigidly, especially when the facts of the case do not warrant such strict segregation.
Interpretation of Singular and Plural: Clarified that under the Interpretation Act, the singular should include the plural unless explicitly stated otherwise, supporting the dismissal of the ET's rigid interpretation.
Legislative Intent: Concluded that Parliament did not intend for technicalities in certificate requirements to bar legitimate claims, aligning with the broader intention of the ET Act to ensure fair and accessible justice.

By distinguishing the case from previous rulings like Mist, the EAT emphasized that the Employment Judge erred in treating a single certificate naming multiple respondents as inherently invalid.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future employment tribunal claims, particularly those involving multiple respondents. Key impacts include:

Greater Flexibility: Employers and claimants are afforded greater flexibility in the early conciliation process, reducing the administrative burden of obtaining separate certificates for each respondent.
Access to Justice: By preventing minor technicalities from obstructing legitimate claims, the judgment enhances access to justice for employees.
Clarification of Procedural Requirements: Provides clarity on the interpretation of statutory provisions surrounding early conciliation, potentially influencing how legal practitioners advise clients on procedural compliance.
Judicial Oversight: Encourages tribunals to focus on the substantive merits of claims rather than procedural adherence, fostering a more equitable judicial process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Early Conciliation

A preliminary step mandated by the ET Act where a claimant must engage with ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) to attempt to resolve disputes before officially filing a claim with the Employment Tribunal.

Section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996

This section requires that most employment-related claims undergo early conciliation. It is designed to encourage dispute resolution without the need for formal tribunal proceedings.

Jurisdictional Points

Refers to the authority of the tribunal to hear a case. In this context, it pertains to whether the tribunal had the legal right to consider the claimant’s case based on procedural compliance with early conciliation requirements.

ET1 Claim Form

The formal document filed by a claimant to initiate a claim with the Employment Tribunal, outlining the grievances and the respondents against whom the claim is made.

Conclusion

The De Mota v. ADR Network & Anor judgment represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of early conciliation procedures under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. By reinstating the claimant’s ability to proceed with claims against multiple respondents despite the issuance of a single early conciliation certificate, the EAT reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities should not impede access to justice.

This decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing procedural adherence with the overarching goal of fair and accessible legal recourse for employees. Legal practitioners should take heed of this judgment, recognizing the flexibility inherent in the early conciliation process and advising clients accordingly to ensure compliance without undue burden.

Ultimately, this case affirms the intention of the ET Act to foster a conciliatory environment while safeguarding the claimant's rights, setting a precedent that is likely to influence the handling of similar cases in the future.