Mr C Thick v Hillier Recycling Ltd T/a Quickskips: 1406574/2020
JUDGMENT
The complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 08 February 2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaint of unfair dismissal should not be struck out because: The Claimant complains of unfair dismissal and s. 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint; The Claimant was employed by the Respondent for less than two years. The Claimant is therefore not entitled to bring such a complaint[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing, despite having been given the opportunity to do so.[3]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore struck out. Employment Judge Dawson Date: 21 April 2021 Judgment sent to the parties: 22 April 2021 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No. 1406574/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Mr C Thick Respondent: Hillier Recycling Limited t/a Quickskips RECORD OF A HEARING Heard at: Southampton (In Person) On: 7 July 2022 Before: Employment Judge Self (Sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: No Attendance For Respondent: No Attendance[1]This matter has had a chequered history which has delayed its resolution. The only remaining claim is one of disability discrimination and the issues were clarified by REJ Pirani at a Telephone Hearing on 28 March 2022. He listed the matter for an Open Preliminary Hearing in person today to consider whether the claim should be struck out or whether a deposit order should be made.[2]At that hearing REJ Pirani also ordered a schedule of loss, the disclosure of medical records and the production of a Disability Impact Statement. Those directions have not been complied with by the Claimant and indeed I am unable to locate any evidence of the Claimant contacting the Tribunal at any time since that Order was made. The Claimant is in default of the orders and is also failing, at this point, to actively pursue his claim.[3]This matter was erroneously listed in Bristol and the parties were informed yesterday that it was to be switched to Southampton. Taking into account the parties addresses which are all just outside Bournemouth it would be far easier to get to Southampton.[4]There has been no attendance from either party today. This is the second time that has happened as neither party appeared at a Telephone Hearing that was scheduled for 27 July 2021 before EJ Gray.[5]The Tribunal clerk has sought to make contact with both parties but has received no response. She has also checked with Bristol on the off chance that either party has attended there but the parties have not been located there.[6]In all the circumstances I can see no reason for the non-attendance of the parties today. I have not heard from the Respondent today in furtherance of striking the claims out and in respect of deposit orders but it would appear that the Claimant’s non-attendance is a continuation of his lack of engagement and failure to pursue his claim with any diligence.[7]In all the circumstances I have made an unless order which firmly places the onus upon the Claimant to do something in order to keep his claim alive. Had the Respondent attended today it is possible that having heard from them the outcome may have been different but I consider that an unless order is a proportionate course in all the circumstances. Date: 07 July 2022 Sent to the parties on: 11 July 2022 By Mr J McCormick For the Tribunal Office