Miss S Bould v Batemans: 1302292/2020
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Signed by: Employment Judge Flood Signed on: 4 May 2020 Case Number: 1302292/2020 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss S Bould Respondent: L M Bateman & Company Limited Heard at: Birmingham Employment Tribunal by CVP On: 2 September 2020 Before: Employment Judge Cookson (sitting alone) Appearances For the claimant: Did not attend For the respondent: Mr Johnson (consultant)[1]The claimant’s claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment are dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rule of Procedure 2013 following her failure to attend today’shearing.
[2]The hearing today was listed to determine if it would be just and equitable to extend time to allow the claimant’s claims for direct sex discrimination and harassment under s13 and s26 of the Equality Act 2006 to continue despite having been submitted outside the primary statutory time limit. Today’s open preliminary hearing was listed at a case management preliminary hearing held before Employment Judge Flood on 20 May 2020 which the claimant did not attend. The case management summary notes that Employment Judge Flood was satisfied that the claimant had received advance notice of that preliminary hearing.[3]No request for the open preliminary hearing today to be adjourned was made by the claimant but it is clear from a document sent to the respondent that she was aware of the case management orders made at the case management preliminary hearing which included details of today’s hearing. Case Number: 1302292/2020 2 of 2[4]The claimant did not attend today’s hearing. She did not contact the tribunal to explain her failure to attend. The start of the hearing was delayed to enable attempts to be made by tribunal staff to contact the claimant by telephone and by email, but there was no answer or response from her.[5]In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the claimant’s claim in accordance with Rule 47 in light of her failure to attend without proper explanation.