Case 1805423/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805423/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that it was common ground the claimant did not have two years' continuous service, so under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108 the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant's application to amend the claim to add a complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 100 had been refused in an Order of the same date. The complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment were not finally decided in this judgment and were to proceed subject to that Order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was not finally determined in this judgment; it was ordered to proceed subject to an Order of the same date. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint was not finally determined in this judgment; it was ordered to proceed subject to an Order of the same date. The extracted text does not separately state the protected characteristic for harassment, but it appears alongside direct race discrimination. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 100
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.