Ms G Magnani v Executive Services Ltd, Sued as Ms K Ramdhan: 2213565/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2213565/2023

Between

Ms. G. MagnaniClaimant

Cowen Executive Services Ltd, sued as Ms Krishti Ramdhan Employment Judge Goodman 24 October 2023Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Goodman

Date 24 October 2023

JUDGMENT

The unfair dismissal claim is dismissed because the claimant does not have two years’ qualifying service

REASONS

[1]The claimant presented a claim to the tribunal on 14 August 2023 that she had been unfairly dismissed.

[2]In order to claim unfair dismissal an employee must have worked for the employer for two years, unless the dismissal was for certain special reasons listed in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[3]As the claimant had only worked for the respondent company for less than four months when she was dismissed, the employment tribunal wrote to her on 22 September asking her to show cause, by 6 October 2023, why the claim should not be struck out because she lacked qualifying service unfair dismissal. I am told that the claimant has not replied.

[4]I add for clarification that an unfair dismissal claim can only be brought against an employer. The claimant has named Ms Ramdhan as the respondent to the claim, but the ACAS early conciliation certificate names both her and Cowen Executive Services Ltd. It is likely that the unrepresented claimant has misunderstood what is required when making the claim and that her employer is Cowen Executive Services, and Ms Ramdhan is the manager she says treated her unfairly.

[5]In another part of the form the claimant says she suffered harassment. I have read carefully the circumstances of dismissal and why the claimant says this was unfair. Nothing suggests that she claims she suffered harassment because of a characteristic protected under the Equality Act 2010. No other claim for harassment can be brought in an employment 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 Case No: 2213565/2023 tribunal.

[6]Having regard to the overriding objective in the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure to deal with cases justly and fairly, having regard to saving delay and expense, I conclude there is no valid claim for the respondent to answer, and that the claim should be dismissed.