Claimant v Bond Freight Trading Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimants did not have the necessary two-year qualifying period of service. Evidence showed employment commenced in March 2022, not 2021 or 2020 as variously claimed. At the date of dismissal in September 2023, they had only 18 months' service and therefore did not meet the statutory threshold to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found the claimants were entitled to notice pay. They were summarily dismissed when the respondent closed the managed offices and froze them out of the business without any notice. The tribunal found no grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct had been established, and the claimants were entitled to statutory minimum notice of one week.
The claimants stated their leave year ran from 1 April to 31 March and they had taken no annual leave in the leave year in which their employment ended. The tribunal found any arrears of holiday pay due at termination were owed to the claimants.
The tribunal found arrears of pay for the period 1-25 September 2023 were due and owing to the claimants. The respondent had failed to pay the claimants for work done up to the date of dismissal on 25 September 2023.
The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of its statutory duty to provide the claimants with a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded compensation under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Facts
The claimants, a father and son team, worked in freight/logistics for the respondent company which was set up post-Brexit to enable trading through Northern Ireland. The plan was for Mr S Atkinson to transition the business over 12 months before retiring, leaving his son Mr R Atkinson as a 50% shareholder with the other director Mr M Morgan. Disputes arose over commission rates, exit terms, and the claimants' establishment of a competing company, Stateline Freight. In September 2023, Mr Morgan closed the UK office in Huntingdon, locked the claimants out, and cancelled their phones and emails without notice or explanation.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimants did not have two years' continuous service, finding employment commenced in March 2022 not earlier as claimed. However, the tribunal found the claimants succeeded on claims for notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of wages, and awarded four weeks' pay for the respondent's failure to provide written employment particulars. The respondent had effectively dismissed the claimants summarily without justification.
Practical note
Employers must provide minimum statutory notice and cannot summarily dismiss employees without grounds for gross misconduct, even where there are business disputes and the employee lacks qualifying service for unfair dismissal protection.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313013/2023
- Decision date
- 30 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister