Cases8000490/2025

Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited

22 October 2025Before Employment Judge M A MacleodScotlandremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claimant lacked the minimum two years' qualifying service required for unfair dismissal. Employment with respondent commenced 4 December 2022, ended 1 October 2024. Prior work from September to December 2022 was under separate contract with Adecco, not the respondent. Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Tribunal reserved the question of disability status to the final hearing due to potential judicial bias issue. Tribunal found it has jurisdiction to hear the claim as the appeal decision of 8 November 2024 was within time, and may bring earlier acts within time if part of continuing conduct.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

Tribunal found it has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The appeal decision of 8 November 2024, which claimant alleged dismissed racism claims without analysis, was within the statutory time limit. Whether earlier acts form part of continuing discrimination to be determined at final hearing.

Facts

Claimant worked at Amazon's Livingston depot from September 2022, initially via Adecco agency, then directly employed from December 2022. He was dismissed on 1 October 2024 for submitting what respondent alleged was a non-genuine medical letter. His appeal was rejected on 8 November 2024. He suffered from chronic pain and mobility issues in his left leg. He filed his tribunal claim on 24 February 2025 after ACAS early conciliation.

Decision

Tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal claim for lack of qualifying service, finding employment commenced in December 2022, not September 2022. The prior period was genuine agency work with Adecco, not the respondent. Tribunal found it has jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims based on the appeal decision of 8 November 2024 being in time, reserving the question of whether earlier acts form part of continuing conduct.

Practical note

Agency arrangements will be respected where genuine, and prior agency service will not count towards qualifying service for unfair dismissal even if doing the same work for the same end-user in the same location.

Legal authorities cited

Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton EAT 175/90Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] EWCA Civ 35Smith v Carillion Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 209Lutz v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 849

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.123(1)EqA 2010 s.140BERA 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
8000490/2025
Decision date
22 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Sortation Associate
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No