Cases2603306/2023

Claimant v Octavian Facilities Management Limited

24 January 2025Before Employment Judge BrewerMidlands Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£6,146

Individual claims

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found that the claimant had passed his six-month probationary period and became entitled to three months' notice. The respondent only paid one week's notice in lieu. There was no clear evidence that the probation period had been expressly or impliedly extended. The claimant was therefore entitled to the balance of the three-month notice period.

Facts

The claimant was employed as Assistant Operations Manager from 20 March 2023 with a six-month probationary period. His contract provided for one week's notice during probation, but three months' notice after passing probation. The claimant was told he had passed his probation in September 2023. The respondent dismissed him with one week's payment in lieu of notice on 10 October 2023, claiming he had failed to upload documents to SharePoint and had lied about having them ready. The key issue was whether the claimant had passed his probation and was therefore entitled to three months' notice.

Decision

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant. There was no clear evidence that the probationary period had been extended beyond the initial six months. The only witness for the respondent had not been present at the relevant conversations, and the person who had told the claimant he passed his probation did not give evidence. The claimant was therefore entitled to three months' notice, having only received one week's payment. The tribunal awarded damages of £6,146.25 representing 11 weeks' net pay.

Practical note

For a probationary period extension to be effective, there must be clear evidence of express words to that effect, particularly where the employee has been told they passed their probation.

Award breakdown

Notice pay£6,146

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994

Case details

Case number
2603306/2023
Decision date
24 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Assistant Operations Manager
Service
7 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No