Claimant v Flying Colours Advice Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service and therefore did not have the statutory right to a redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim was not struck out and remains to be determined pending the claimant's application to complain of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to regulation 7(1) of the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000.
The claimant is pursuing a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000, which does not require two years' qualifying service. This claim remains to be determined at a future hearing.
Facts
The claimant Mr Rado brought claims for redundancy payment and unfair dismissal against Flying Colours Advice Ltd. The claimant did not have two years' continuous service. The claimant was a part-time worker and sought to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair under the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment claim on the basis that the claimant lacked the required two years' qualifying service. However, the unfair dismissal claim was not struck out because the claimant was pursuing an automatic unfair dismissal claim under the Part Time Workers Regulations, which does not require qualifying service. This claim will proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
Part-time workers can pursue automatic unfair dismissal claims under the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000 without needing two years' qualifying service, unlike ordinary unfair dismissal claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305662/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No