Case 2401186/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McKenna v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401186/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McKenna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr McKenna brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. It noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless the case falls within one of the statutory exceptions in section 108(3).
The claimant was employed for less than two years. After being given an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, he argued that the dismissal involved discrimination arising from disability and should therefore be treated as automatically unfair, with exceptional circumstances removing the two-year requirement. The tribunal held that he had confused a disability discrimination complaint under the Equality Act 2010 with an unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal said that a dismissal which is an act of disability discrimination is not one of the categories of automatically unfair dismissal to which the two-year qualifying period does not apply, and that it had no discretion to allow the unfair dismissal complaint to proceed in the absence of the required service. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's disability discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were not affected by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and the claim did not fall within any category exempt from the minimum service requirement under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 ERA 1996
- section 108(3) ERA 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.