Case 1308828/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oleksander Serhiienko v Staffline in Muller Minsterley Muller Dairy — 2024
- Case reference
- 1308828/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Oleksander Serhiienko
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Oleksander Serhiienko, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Staffline in Muller Minsterley Muller Dairy. The tribunal recorded that the complaint was the only matter addressed in the judgment.
The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Serhiienko had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that he had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.