Case 1803362/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Dunarintu v Wolstenholme Machine Knives Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1803362/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Dunarintu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing in Sheffield on 26 August 2020, Employment Judge Little held that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The judgment records the Employment Rights Act 1996 rule that the right not to be unfairly dismissed usually applies only where the employee has at least two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination, and notes that none of the automatic unfair dismissal exceptions applied.
The claimant's employment is stated to have run from 16 April 2019 to 24 March 2020, which the tribunal described as approximately 11 months. On that basis, the judge concluded that she did not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over that complaint. The judgment states that this decision did not affect the other complaints in the claim form, which were race discrimination and sex discrimination arising from the same dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because it had no jurisdiction: the claimant had been employed from 16 April 2019 to 24 March 2020, about 11 months, so she did not meet the usual two-year qualifying period. The judgment states that none of the automatic unfair dismissal exceptions applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- two-year qualifying period under the Employment Rights Act 1996
- automatic unfair dismissal exceptions
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.