Mr E Prushi v Gatwick Construction Ltd: 2305233/2021
JUDGMENT
The unfair dismissal claim 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 these proceedings.[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 claim is struck out.[7]The claimant’s other claims are unaffected _____________________________ Employment Judge Balogun Date: 18 January 2022 Sent to the parties on Date: 20 January 2022 _____________________________ Michael Chandler For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 2305233/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr E Prushi Respondent: Gatwick Construction Ltd Heard at: London South ET (by CVP video hearing) On: 28 June 2023 Before: Employment Judge Hena Representation Claimant: In Person Respondent: No Representative, Mr and Mrs Toon (Managing Director and Director)[1]The claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal, pursuant to s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, does not succeed, it was found whilst the respondent’s procedure for gross misconduct was lacking, the conduct was appropriately determined by the respondent as gross misconduct as set out in the employment contract.[2]That the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions of wages for the period of the 1 July to 23 July 2021 for the sum of £2,546.80 has not succeeded. The respondent was entitled according to the contract of employment to recover their overpayments and the claimant was not entitled to any notice pay. In respect of the case management applications made prior to the hearing commencing the Tribunal found:[1]The respondent’s application to include two emails relating to the claimant not working during his sick leave, which were found the morning of the hearing, was refused as late admittance would be unfair on the claimant.[2]The respondent’s application to include two degree certificates for the claimant as evidence was refused as it was sent to him on 30 May 2023, without an explanation as its relevance to his claim and it was after the documents should have been agreed between to the two parties.