Claimant v 3RIO Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was employed for less than two years and therefore had no qualifying service to bring this complaint.
The redundancy payment claim was struck out because section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years employment to qualify for a redundancy payment. The claimant had less than two years service and therefore was not entitled to bring this claim. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. The tribunal noted that the claimant had other complaints which were not affected by this judgment, suggesting there were additional claims beyond unfair dismissal and redundancy.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant did not have the requisite two years service required under sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Despite being given the opportunity to provide reasons why the complaints should not be struck out, the claimant failed to give an acceptable explanation.
Practical note
Claimants with less than two years service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal or redundancy payment claims, regardless of the merits, unless they can establish an automatically unfair dismissal claim which does not require qualifying service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401242/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No