Mr S Shingiro v CRMM Logistics Ltd: 2500306/2024
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. CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under Rule 69, the judgment sent to the parties on 21 November 2024, is corrected as set out in bold in the name of the Respondent in the corrected judgment. Employment Judge Heather Date 16 December 2024 Important note to parties: Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment. Case number: 2500306/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Shingiro Respondent: CRMM Logistics Limited Heard at: Newcastle On: 4 November 2024 Before: Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented Respondent: Mrs Bacanu (Mr Bacanu also attended)[1]The hearing was scheduled to start at 10:00am. The parties were directed to arrive by 9:30am.[2]At my direction, the Clerk contacted Mr Shingiro by email at 10:27am as he had not attended the Tribunal centre. Mr Shingiro responded at 10:37 stating: “Good morning I believe there is an issue, I am currently in Belgium, the date given are short notice for me to be able to attend the hearing. It’s best to give me at least 15 days to prepare myself to come to the hearing. Regards Serge Shingiro”[3]Mr Shingiro and Mr Bacanu and Mrs Bacanu each attended the Preliminary Hearing which was held remotely by CVP on 19 July 2024.[4]The details of the hearing were set out in the Case Management Order of 19 July 2024 which was sent to the parties by email at 14:31 on 19 August 2024.[5]The Case Management Order also gave directions for both parties to send copies of documents that are relevant to the case by 30 August 2024, for Mr Shingiro to prepare a file of documents by 14 September 2024 and for both parties to prepare witness statements by 28 September 2024.[6]The Tribunal has not received a file of documents and Mrs Bacanu told the Tribunal that the Respondent has not received any documents or witness statements from Mr Shingiro.[7]The email address which was used to communicate with Mr Shingiro today was the same email address that was in the claim form and the same email address that was used to send the Case Management Order to Mr Shingiro on 19 August 2024.[8]The claim is denied by the Respondent which says that it has never employed Mr Shingiro in any capacity.[9]I do not have sufficient information or evidence from Mr Shingiro about his claim (specifically the basis for his claim for unpaid wages as set out in paragraphs 35 – 44 of the Case Management Order) to be able to proceed with today’s hearing in his absence.[10]I am not satisfied that Mr Shingiro has a proper reason for not attending today’s hearing and therefore I dismissed his claims in accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules.