Mr A Bickle v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service: 1802437/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims of Unfair Dismissal is struck out in accordance with Rule 37(1) paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the Rules”), on the grounds that such claim, expressed as a pure and simple unfair dismissal claim, has no reasonable prospect of success because the Claimant does not have 2 years qualifying service with the Respondents as required by Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”).REASONS
[2]In considering the Respondents application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim, I went through with the Claimant every single part of the particulars of his claim as set out in his ET1.[3]I noted the following: -3.1 the Claimant does not in any way explain his reasons for resigning but he confirmed that termination of his employment was by resignation and was not express dismissal by the Respondents; 1 of 2 Case Number: 1802437/20223.2 Nothing in the Claim Particulars states clearly or even obliquely that resignation was by reason of the matters complained of which are all in terms confirmed to unparticularised allegations of disability discrimination in unspecified forms or head so of statutory claim;3.3 The Claimant has less than two years’ service with the Respondent but sought to argue that he believed that service with another Fire Authority was to be deemed as continuous for all purposes;[4]Mr Finlay for the Respondents explained that the Respondents are indeed a distinctly separate authority and statutory entity to the Norfolk Fire Service who had been the Claimant’s direct employer right upto the day before he joined the Respondents.[5]Mr Finlay also explained that there exists the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment Modification) Order 1999 which modifies the existing background law by artificially deeming continuity of employment for employees transferring from one statutory authority to another but limiting this modification to the purposes of preserving and calculating redundancy rights, but not extending to employment protection rights under Part X of ERA.[6]I found Mr Finlay’s arguments persuasive to a sufficient degree to find that the Claimant cannot rely on past service in Norfolk as being continuous with his service for the Respondents to enable him to argue that he has sufficient length of service as required under Section 10891) ERA.