Case 2309459/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Kozlowska v Pro Recruitment Group Limited Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2309459/2020
- Decision date
- 25 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Kozlowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 25 October 2021 before Employment Judge Pritchard, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required qualifying period of employment under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal found that none of the automatic unfair dismissal exceptions applied.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant’s race discrimination/harassment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. A further claim for 'other payments', described in the judgment as notice pay and holiday pay, was also dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and none of the automatic unfair dismissal exclusions applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded in the judgment as a combined 'race discrimination/harassment' claim and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | Recorded in the judgment as part of the combined 'race discrimination/harassment' claim and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Other | Claim described by the claimant as 'other payments', namely notice pay and holiday pay, and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.