Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years service and therefore did not meet the qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
This claim remains live and proceeds. The tribunal expressly stated that the automatic unfair dismissal complaint is not affected by the strike-out of the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, as automatic unfair dismissal does not require two years qualifying service.
Facts
Mr Sweeney was employed by Sainsbury's for less than two years before his employment was terminated. He brought claims of both ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal considered whether his ordinary unfair dismissal claim should be struck out on the basis that he lacked the required two years continuous service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years service and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996. However, the automatic unfair dismissal claim was expressly permitted to proceed as it does not require qualifying service.
Practical note
Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years continuous employment, but automatic unfair dismissal claims (based on specific prohibited reasons) have no qualifying period and can proceed even with minimal service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013494/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No