Miss E N McGuire v Axiom Ince Ltd (In Administration): 2410969/2023
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 KM Ross Date: 9 April 2024 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.[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 KM Ross Date: 9 April 2024[1]The claimant's claim for notice pay is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the claimant one week’s gross pay of £249.92.[2]The claimant’s claim for unpaid wages is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the claimant one week’s pay from 25 September 2023 to 3 October 2023 of £249.92.[3]The claimant's claim for 12.5 accrued but untaken holidays on termination of employment at £49.98 gross daily is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the claimant £624.75.[4]The claimant's complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 of a failure by the respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act is not well-founded. This is because the claimant was based at Manchester in an establishment where less than 20 staff were made redundant and accordingly the claimant is not entitled to a protective award.