Case 2217825/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. W. Gainey v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd. Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217825/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. W. Gainey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 23 January 2025 before Employment Judge Tinnion, the Tribunal considered the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal dismissed the claim because the Claimant had not been employed by the Respondent for the minimum period of 2 years required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal recorded that it was not in dispute, and the Claimant accepted, that she had been employed for approximately 2 months. It therefore found that she did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement in s.108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which applies to claims under ss.94-98. The Tribunal noted that some unfair dismissal claims do not require 2 years' service, but said that the categories of automatic unfair dismissal do not include complaints that a dismissal was unfair because it was an act of direct race or age discrimination under s.13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Claimant argued that unfair dismissal complaints based on direct race or age discrimination should be treated as automatic unfair dismissal claims so that the 2-year qualifying period would not apply. The Tribunal rejected that submission, stating that it had no power or discretion to extend the existing statutory categories of automatic unfair dismissal, which was a matter for Parliament. The judgment therefore records a straightforward jurisdictional dismissal of the unfair dismissal claim, with no remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the Claimant had not been employed by the Respondent for the 2-year qualifying period required for an unfair dismissal claim. The Claimant accepted she had been employed for approximately 2 months and argued that direct race or age discrimination should exempt the claim from the qualifying period; the Tribunal rejected that argument. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.