Case 2402423/2024 · Employment Tribunal
G Alderson v Rossendale Borough Council PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402423/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Alderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Manchester on 24 July 2024 before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone. The claimant, G Alderson, was represented by his father and the respondent by a solicitor. The tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint at this preliminary hearing.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant presented a claim form on 21 April 2024 complaining of unfair dismissal. It found that he had been employed by Rossendale Borough Council for less than 2 years. Referring to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal noted that 2 years' qualifying service is required to bring an unfair dismissal complaint except in limited circumstances.
The claimant did not identify any circumstances to support a claim of automatic unfair dismissal, for which the qualifying service requirement does not apply, and did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints, of breach of contract for notice pay and holiday pay due at the termination of employment, were not affected by the decision and would proceed to a hearing on 12 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than 2 years' service and had failed to identify any circumstances supporting automatic unfair dismissal or give an acceptable reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.