Mrs G George-Garnett v The Body Shop International Ltd: 6000408/2023
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 Smail Date: 9 May 2023 Judgment sent to the Parties on 18 May 2023 For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 6000408/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mrs G George-Garnett v The Body Shop International Limited Heard at: Southampton On: 12 and 13 February 2023 Before: Employment Judge Rayner Appearances For the Claimant: Mr Garnett, claimant’s husband For the Respondent: Day 1 Mr P Martin Counsel. Day 2 respondent did not attend[1]Each of the Claimant’s claims of direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.[2]Each of the claimant’s claims of harassment related to race contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.[3]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £5.00 as a condition of in respect of each claim, for the reasons set out in the order of EJ Bax of 8 January 2024 in respect of the claims of direct discrimination and in respect of the claims of harassment.[4]The deposit will now be paid to the respondent under rule 39(5)b of the ET (Constitution and rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013[5]The matter will be listed for a further hearing to determine whether or not the claimant should be treated as having acted unreasonable in pursuing the claim, contrary to rule 39(5)a ET (Constitution and rules of Procedure) regulations 2013, and whether any costs order should therefore be made against the claimant. A separate case management order will follow this judgment. Case Number: 6000408/2023 2