Mr G Irimia v Sonder Europe Ltd: 2201727/2020 and 2202159/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims under the above claim numbers are consolidated.[2]The claims are dismissed.REASONS
[1]This judgment was given following a hearing under rule 21 on the telephone.[2]I spoke to the Claimant and read two ET1s and also his contract dated 10/16/2019 and dismissal letter dated 16/3/2020.[3]The first ET1 (2201727 2020) was presented on 25/3/2020 and claimed unfair dismissal, age and race discrimination, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments but gave an incorrect address for the Respondent so the Claimant told me he did not rely on it.[4]The second ET1 (2202159 2020) was presented on 8/4/2020. The Claimant assured me that it had the correct address for the Respondent. In it the Claimant claimed unfair dismissal, age discrimination, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments, specified as a “1200$” bonus. He gave no particulars or explanation about the bonus or why his dismissal was allegedly either unfair or age discriminatory. I have consolidated the claims under the two claim numbers as they are largely if not entirely the same.[5]The Claimant was employed from 19/10/2019 as a maintenance specialist at the rate of £14 per hour and 40 hours per week – ie £560 per week. Under his contract he was entitled to one weeks’ notice during his probation period which had not expired by the time of his dismissal. He was dismissed on 16/3/2020 and he confirmed that all his salary and holiday payments were paid up to the date of dismissal plus he received a payment for one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.[6]The Claimant is not entitled to claim unfair dismissal as he did not have 2 years’ service.[7]He has no claim for salary or notice or holidays as these have all been paid correctly. 2201727 2020 and 2202159 2020[8]When I spoke to him at length he made no reference to age discrimination until I prompted him, asking why he had referred to this. His answer was “I was the only person aged 50 in the company”. In his ET1 he has given his birth date as 24/4/69. I do not regard this bald fact as sufficient to make out even a prima facie age discrimination claim.[9]I also had to prompt the Claimant to tell me about the bald reference to a “1200$” bonus in his second ET1 claim form. He said that this was a holiday payment made to all employees in the second year of employment, but was unable to provide me with any coherent explanation about this and it is not referred to in the Claimant’s contract or dismissal letter and nor had he completed even his 6 month probation period before being dismissed so I regard it as highly unlikely that he had any such entitlement.[10]I am not satisfied by the information the Claimant has provided me with and find that his claims are not proved. J S Burns