Mr T Cassisi v John Prendergast: 1305077/2018
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. ________________________ Employment Judge Dimbylow Date: 14 January 2019[1]This hearing was due to start at 9.45am; but at that time neither party was present. I put it back to 10.45am. When the hearing commenced, the claimant still having failed to attend or be represented I considered if the claim should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 47.[2]The respondent ADC Limited had lodged a response and resisted the claim.[3]I was satisfied that notice of today’s hearing had been given to the correct address retained on file for the claimant. Furthermore, my clerk tried to contact the claimant without success by telephone; and checked for telephone calls or outstanding correspondence that would provide an explanation for the claimant’s absence and found none.[4]I find the claimant was properly served and that he failed to inform the tribunal he would not be attending or in the alternative lodge written representations. Case Number 1305077/2018 2[5]Having further considered the file I noted the claimant had failed to lodge a written statement and supporting documentation concerning his claim, in breach of a case management order made and sent to the parties on 1 April 2019. Similarly, the claimant failed to comply with a direction of Employment Judge Woffenden (also made and sent to the parties on 1 April 2019) to confirm if he agreed the correct name of the respondent was ADC Limited, and to reply in 7 days.[6]I considered the information before me was insufficient to assess the extent or merits of the claim or make an award in the claimant’s favour in relation to the losses claimed or compensation. The correct identity of the respondent remained as an issue. I noted that in the narrative of the claim form the claimant referred to working for a company called “App Design Co Limited”. Although that company exists and is active at Companies House, there is a proposal to strike it off.[7]I concluded that it was just, fair and proportionate to dismiss the claim under Rule 47. Signed by: