Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out Due to Insufficient Service Period
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the worker's unfair dismissal claim because they had worked for less than two years, which is the minimum service period required under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employee must have completed at least two years of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient service period.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim as they had not completed the required two-year service period under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Case Number: 6002140/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT The claim is struck out.
REASONS 1. The claimant complains of unfair dismissal.
2. Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.
3. The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
4. Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring these proceedings.
5. The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
6.
Accordingly, the claim is struck out. _____________________________ Employment Judge Bax Date: 11 November 2024
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 22nd November 2024 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the worker could bring an unfair dismissal claim after working for less than two years.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claim because the worker had not met the two-year service requirement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the worker had not completed the required two-year service period.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may not be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim if they have not completed the required two-year service period.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify