Case 2400274/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Zbieralski v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400274/2025
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Zbieralski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr S Zbieralski brought complaints of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment against Amazon UK Services Ltd. It noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 155 provides that an employee does not have the right to a redundancy payment unless they have two years' service, subject to certain exceptions.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaints or the redundancy payment claim. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity, he failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaints in all three linked claims should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaints were struck out and the redundancy payment complaint was also struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the decision. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Phil Allen on 11 April 2025 and sent to the parties on 15 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says the unfair dismissal complaints in each of the linked claims were struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why they should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.