Case 3300180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Rio Alves & Mr M Rio Alves v Heart Cleaning Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300180/2022
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Rio Alves & Mr M Rio Alves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaints. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mrs C Rio Alves and Mr M Rio Alves had been employed by Heart Cleaning Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints and struck them out. It also noted that the claimants had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, and found the claimants had been employed for less than two years. It also recorded that they did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaints should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.