Case 1300116/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Safety Wear — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300116/2021
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. By letter dated 15 March 2021, it invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he did not appear to have two years' service for the purposes of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
At the preliminary hearing on 23 June 2021, the claimant was unable to give a reason why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out and could not identify any specific circumstances that would exempt him from the two-year qualifying service requirement. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that this does not affect the claimant's other claims of unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract, which remained listed for hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not appear to have two years' service as required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and at the preliminary hearing on 23 June 2021 he was unable to identify circumstances exempting him from that requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.