Mr R Watt and others v Harlow Pizza Ltd: 1800063/2020 and others
JUDGMENT
The Claimants’ complaints of unfair dismissal are 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 Claimants were employed by the Respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The Claimants have failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal are struck out. The Claimants’ other complaints are not affected by this Judgment. Employment Judge Brain Date: 25 February 2020. Case No: 1800063/2020 1800065/2020 1800068/2020 1800069/2020 1801084/2020 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Mr R Watt Mr G Grozavu Mr S Fuentes Mr F Pardita Mr R Elliott Respondent: Harlow Pizza Ltd. On: 28 April 2020 Before: Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances For the claimants: In person For the respondent: No appearance[1]Upon considering the submissions of the claimants and all the available material I am satisfied that a determination can be made of the claims.[2]The claimants presented claims to the Employment Tribunal of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages outstanding holiday pay and, in respect of Mr Elliott, failure to provide itemised pay statements.[3]The claims of unfair dismissal have been dismissed as the claimants did not have the required continuous period of service with the respondent pursuant to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Case No: 1800063/2020 1800065/2020 1800068/2020 1800069/2020 1801084/2020 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template[4]The time for presenting a response to the claims has expired and no valid response has been presented, and, on the information before the Employment Judge, the claims of unauthorised deduction from wages outstanding holiday pay and, in the case of Mr Elliott, failure to provide itemised pay statements, succeed.