Miss A Baldwin v The Governing Body of Ravenscliffe High School and The Borough Council of Calderdale: 1805648/2020

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1805648/2020
Miss A BaldwinClaimantRavenscliffe SchoolRespondent
Employment Judge McAvoy NewnsIn person for claimantMs McIlveen (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 5 July 2021

JUDGMENT

[1]The Claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages is dismissed following the Claimant’s withdrawal.[2]The Claimant’s claim for breach of contract and unpaid holiday pay are unaffected by this judgment. Employment Judge McAvoy Newns 14 April 2021 Case Number: 1805648/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Baldwin Respondent 1: The Governing Body of Ravenscliffe High School Respondent 2: The Borough Council of Calderdale Heard at: Leeds (by telephone) On: 05 July 2021 Before: Employment Judge Cronin Appearances: For the claimant: In person For the respondent: Mr S Blake (Calderdale Borough Council)

REASONS

[1]The claimant complains of unfair dismissal.[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 unless her complaint falls within one of the special categories of unfair dismissal to which the two year service requirement does not apply.[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. The claim form and the claimant’s submissions by way of email of 05 May 2021do not identify the unfair dismissal complaint as falling within one of the special PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 2 August 2020 Case Number: 1805648/2020 categories of unfair dismissal to which the requirement for two years’ service does not apply. The Tribunal does not have discretion to allow unfair dismissal claims to proceed, if they do not fall within one of the special categories to which the service requirement does not apply.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.[7]The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment and will proceed to a hearing as notified. N. J. Cronin