Struck OutEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·28 January 2025

Unfair Dismissal Complaint Struck Out Due to Insufficient Service Length

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because they had not worked for the employer for at least two years, as required by law.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must provide at least two years of service for an employee to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Topics

unfair dismissalservice length requirement

Provisions

s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996

📖 Technical summary

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out due to insufficient service length.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal struck out a claimant's unfair dismissal complaint as the claimant had not completed two years of service, as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

📚 Full judgment Official document

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted] Respondents: [redacted] 2) [COMPANY_4] 3) Secretary of State or Business and Trade

Heard at: Bristol

On: 6 December 2024

Before: Employment Judge Dawson

Appearances For the claimant: [redacted]

For the respondents: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent failed to comply with the requirements of ss188-190 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. 2. The complaints for protective awards by the claimants are therefore well- founded and succeed in respect of all those employed at the establishment of [COMPANY_4], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], and dismissed on 15 and 16 November 2023.

Case Numbers: 1406187/2023, 1406190/2023, 1406207/2023, 1406220/2023, 1406221/2023, 1400003/2024, 1400392/2024, 1400393/2024, 1400394/2024, 1400395/2024, 1400396/2024, 1400397/2024, 1400398/2024, 1400399/2024, 1400400/2024, 1400401/2024, 1400402/2024, 1400403/2024, 1400404/2024, 1400405/2024, 1400406/2024, 1400407/2024, 1400408/2024, 1400409/2024, 1400410/2024, 1400411/2024, 1400412/2024, 1400413/2024, 1400414/2024, 1400415/2024, 1400416/2024, 1400417/2024, 1400418/2024 3. The first respondent is ordered to pay remuneration (that is a protective award) to the class of employees identified at paragraph 2 above including for the avoidance of doubt those whose names are set out in the schedule hereto.

4. The protective award is for 90 days beginning on 16.11.2023 being the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint relates took effect.

5. All other claims are dismissed.

Employment Judge Dawson

Date 6 December 2024

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 17 January 2024 By [NAME_7]

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes

Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.

Public access to employment tribunal decisions

Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.

Recording and Transcription

Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/

Recoupment

The recoupment provisions do not apply to this judgment.

SCHEDULE OF CLAIMS AND CLAIMANTS

1406187/2023 [NAME_8] 1406190/2023 [NAME_9] 1406207/2023 [NAME_40] 1406220/2023 [NAME_12] 1406221/2023 [NAME_13] 1400003/2024 [NAME_14] 1400392/2024 [NAME_1] 1400393/2024 [NAME_38] 1400394/2024 [NAME_16] 1400395/2024 [NAME_14] 1400396/2024 [NAME_40] 1400397/2024 [NAME_18] 1400398/2024 [NAME_39] 1400399/2024 [NAME_8] 1400400/2024 [NAME_21] 1400401/2024 [NAME_22] 1400402/2024 [NAME_10] 1400403/2024 [NAME_11] 1400404/2024 [NAME_23] 1400405/2024 [NAME_24] 1400406/2024 [NAME_19] 1400407/2024 [NAME_25] 1400408/2024 [NAME_26] 1400409/2024 [NAME_27] 1400410/2024 [NAME_28] 1400411/2024 [NAME_29] 1400412/2024 [NAME_17] 1400413/2024 [NAME_30] 1400414/2024 [NAME_12] 1400415/2024 [NAME_31] 1400416/2024 [NAME_13] 1400417/2024 [NAME_15] 1400418/2024 [NAME_42] (as Executors of Neil Blout deceased)

Case Number: 1406187/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

The complaint that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed 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 has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

4. Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The Claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment.

_____________________________

Employment Judge Cadney

Date: 30th January 2024

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

07 February 2024 By [NAME_7]

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the claimant could bring an unfair dismissal claim after working for the employer for less than two years.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the claim, stating that the claimant had not met the minimum service length requirement of two years.

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 the claimant's failure to meet the two-year service requirement.

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 should ensure they meet the minimum service length requirement before bringing an unfair dismissal claim.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.