Mr M Lang v Construction Labour Supply: 3212811/2020
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 Burgher 13 January 2021 Case Number: 3212811/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Lang Respondent: Construction Labour Supply Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 12 April 2021 Before: Employment Judge Housego Representation Claimant: Did not attend, was not represented and sent no submissions Respondent: Samuel Collins[1]The claim was listed for a preliminary hearing today. The Claimant did not attend, was not represented and had not sent any submissions.[2]The Respondent is an agency which supplies construction workers, which it employs, to its clients.[3]A claim for unfair dismissal was struck out by a judgment dated 13 January 2021, sent to the parties on 22 March 2021, because the claimant had not two years’ service (it was only 2 days).[4]The claimant was dismissed as his work was not considered adequate. When he left site he took with him an industrial thermometer (his claim form admits this). He also sent highly abusive and insulting text messages which mainly consisted of foul language. After denying he had done so, he was told he was seen on cctv doing it. He returned the instrument the following Case Number: 3212811/2020 2 day, but the client had to purchase another in the meantime. The cost exceeded any money he might have been due.[5]He claims his wages for the 2 days when he was on site.[6]However, since receiving the response form the claimant has taken no action in respect of his claim, and in particular did not attend today’s telephone hearing.[7]I decided to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d), as it is not being actively pursued.