Did not attend For the v Ms C Musgrave — 2020

This was an open preliminary hearing on 9 October 2020. The claimant did not attend by CVP. The tribunal decided to proceed in her absence under Rule 47, noting that she had been given notice, had filed written material on the issues, had not explained why she could not attend by video, lived in New Zealand, and had not indicated any realistic prospect of attending in person. The tribunal also noted the long delay in progressing the case since 2017.

The only issue determined in the written reasons was whether the claimant had the two years' continuous employment needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The parties agreed the termination date was 25 August 2017, so the claimant needed to have been employed on or before 24 August 2015. The tribunal rejected the June 2015 date on the offer letter as an error, relying instead on the claimant's own 12 September 2015 email querying the date, her 8 August 2015 application, later offer letters and sponsorship documents, and the starter form and contract documents stating a start date of 8 February 2016.

The tribunal found that induction training in October 2015 did not create an employment relationship, and that the documentary record, including the claimant's own disability statement and a later reference, supported a February 2016 start. It therefore held that the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years and did not have jurisdiction to pursue an unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996. The reasons say that separate orders dealt with the remaining issues about disability and whether a fair hearing was still possible.