Claimant v Propel Tech Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant lacked the necessary two years' qualifying service required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's argument that non-compliance with the ACAS code constituted an automatically unfair dismissal was rejected as this is not a relevant statutory right under section 104(4) ERA 1996.
The wrongful dismissal claim was unaffected by the strike-out of the unfair dismissal claim and remains listed for hearing with a reduced time estimate of 3 hours.
Facts
The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim after being dismissed by Propel Tech Limited. The claimant had less than two years' service with the respondent. The claimant attempted to argue that the respondent's alleged failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice meant the dismissal should be considered automatically unfair.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the required two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that ACAS code non-compliance could give rise to an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104(1). The wrongful dismissal claim remains listed.
Practical note
Breach of the ACAS code does not constitute a 'relevant statutory right' under section 104(4) ERA 1996 and cannot found an automatic unfair dismissal claim to circumvent the two-year qualifying service requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1805504/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No