Case 1301313/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Piegza v Real Coffee Bag Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301313/2022
- Decision date
- 10 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Piegza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Real Coffee Bag Company Limited. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the statutory qualifying period, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal claim. It also recorded that she had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but failed to give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No remedy was awarded on the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. It also found she did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.