Mr Brosrich Campbell v Manning Gottlieb OMD In the London South Region by CVP — 2022

The claimant presented his ET1 on 26 January 2022 and ticked unfair dismissal and another claim described as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract and discrimination, but he did not tick any discrimination box or identify a protected characteristic in the narrative. The tribunal wrote to him on 24 February 2022 explaining section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the two-year qualifying period. At the preliminary hearing he said he had been dismissed during probation, had no infractions, and believed the dismissal was unfair, but he did not plead or show that any automatic unfair dismissal exception applied.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment with the respondent and therefore did not have the statutory right to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that no automatic unfair dismissal category applied on the pleaded case or on the explanation given at the hearing, so section 108 ERA 1996 was not displaced.

The breach of contract claim was withdrawn and dismissed. On the discrimination issue, the claimant eventually said the protected characteristic was race, but the tribunal found that the ET1 did not plead race discrimination or facts from which discrimination could be inferred. When asked why he thought he had been discriminated against, he relied on the same points as for unfair dismissal, namely that he had done nothing wrong, his work had been satisfactory, and there had been no proper process. The tribunal referred to Rule 37, Chandhok v Tirkey, Adebowale v ISBAN UK Ltd, and Ahir v British Airways plc, and dismissed the race discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.