Claimant v Greater Manchester Police
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was employed for less than two years and therefore does not meet the statutory qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
Mr Firth brought an unfair dismissal claim against three respondents: Greater Manchester Police, Permanent Futures, and PayStream My Max Limited. His employment with the respondents lasted less than two years. The tribunal considered whether to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis of insufficient qualifying service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous employment under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. Other complaints brought by the claimant were not affected by this judgment.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996, and tribunals will strike out claims where this threshold is not met, even where the claimant has other ongoing claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6022996/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Greater Manchester Police
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No