Miss J Stepinska v Cakebox Southend Ltd: 3201249/2023
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[1]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 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 complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaint is not affected by this judgment.[7]The hearing listed for the 6 December 2023 will consider whether it was reasonably practicable to bring your claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 within 3 months of your termination of employment and if not whether it was brought within such further period as is reasonable. Dated: 9 November 2023 Employment Judge Lewis Case Number: 3201249/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms J Stepinska Respondent: Cake Box Southend Limited Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (via CVP) On: 6 December 2023 Before: Employment Judge Yale Representation Claimant: Absent Respondent: Mr Y Mahmood (Litigation Consultant)[8]The claimant does not appear to have engaged with the process at all, having lodged an ET1. She did not even respond to a Strike Out warning in relation to her unfair dismissal claim and that claim was struck out as a result. There has been no correspondence from her. The respondent confirmed she had not been engaging, or in any form of contact, with them at all. Every possible means of contacting her was explored today to no avail.[9]In all the circumstances, bearing in mind the overriding objective, the failure of the claimant to actively pursue the claim, the lack of response to an e-mail and calls made this morning, her previous failure to respond to a Strike Out warning and her failure to attend today’s hearing without any apparent attempts to explain her absence, in my judgment, it was appropriate to exercise my discretion under rule 47 to dismiss the claim.