Miss M M Jones v The Little School At Pooh Corner: 1402657/2022
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 Livesey Date: 22 September 2022[1]The Respondent’s correct name is “The Little School Day Nursery Ltd”.[2]The complaint of wrongful dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed.[3]This case was initially listed for hearing on 23rd December 2022 at 12pm by video hearing. This was postponed on the Employment Tribunal’s initiative due to an issue with listings. The case was re-listed for today at 10am by video hearing.[4]The Claimant did not attend, whilst Mrs Matthews attended on behalf of the Respondent.[5]Between 9:50am and 10:30am, attempts were made by Employment Tribunal clerks to contact the Claimant. This included leaving three voicemail messages asking the Claimant to contact the Employment Tribunal. An email was also sent asking her to make contact with the Tribunal. There was no response.[6]In accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, I was satisfied that practicable enquiries had been made to contact the Claimant.[7]No information was available to me explaining the reasons for the Claimant’s absence. Case Number: 1402657/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61[8]I considered the interests of justice of whether I should adjourn the hearing to a new date, to continue in the Claimant’s absence or to dismiss the claim.[9]I concluded that the appropriate course of action was to continue with the hearing in the absence of the Claimant.