Mr Robert Wasowski v Princes Soft Drinks Bradford — 2019

The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to decide whether Mr Robert Wasowski's unfair dismissal claim could proceed, because he had less than two years' continuous service. The claimant did not attend in person, although the respondent attended through counsel and an interpreter had been booked at the claimant's request. After the clerk telephoned him, the claimant said he was at work, thought he had notified the tribunal that he could not attend, and wanted to proceed, but no further communication was received.

The tribunal found that the ET1 was a claim for unfair dismissal only. Although the claim form and later email referred to discrimination, the judge accepted the respondent's submission that those references related to how the respondent allegedly treated another individual, not to a separate discrimination claim by the claimant. The claimant had also been told by letter that he needed two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim unless special circumstances applied, and his email of 8 August 2019 did not explain any basis on which the tribunal could permit the claim to proceed.

Applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and had not shown a jurisdictional basis for the claim to continue. The claim was therefore dismissed. The tribunal noted the overriding objective and recorded that, if the claimant later had information justifying reconsideration in the interests of justice, he could apply under Rules 70 to 72 of the Tribunal Rules. It also noted the respondent's position that it had incurred counsel's fees and wished to reserve its position on costs.