Miss A Watson v Nubreed Hotels Ltd - J Wicks (CEO): 1804598/2022
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 Maidment Date: 28 October 2022 Case: 1804598/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Watson Respondent: Nubreed Hotels Limited [sued as Nubreed Hotels Ltd – Joseph Wicks (CEO)] AT A HEARING Heard at: Leeds by CVP video conferencing On: 26th January 2023 Before: Employment Judge Lancaster Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms C Goodman, counsel[1]The Respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages by not specifically allocating within her dismissal letter and final payment a separable sum equivalent to the full 1 calendar month’s notice from 25th August 2022, and which was required to be made to her under clause 11.3 of the contract as properly payable in order to effect the early termination on 23rd September 2022.[2]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the gross sum of £166.00 (calculated at 2 days’ pay on an annual salary of £20,280/52/5 = £78 per day)[1]The oral application made today to amend the claim to include further complaints of non-payment of £200.00 non-contractual commission allegedly due on 23rd September 2022 is refused.[2]The oral application made today to amend the claim to include a new complaint or complaints of sex discrimination is refused. Any fresh claim setting out in writing the basis of such an allegation and explaining why it would be just and equitable to extend the time for presentation will, if made, be considered on its merits. Case: 1804598/2022 2