Mr O Sanodze v New Recruits Professional Services Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto sitting alone on 2 August 2019. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints, and the judgment records that the claimant’s ET1 did not clearly set out a justiciable claim. The claimant had been assigned by New Recruits Professional Services Ltd to Rudolph and Hellman from 2 November 2017 to 5 January 2018, and his application referred to losing the job and not being told why.

At the hearing, the claimant explained that he had been refused entry to work after travelling to the site, that he had complained to the agency, that his assignment ended, and that he wanted an explanation. He also mentioned notice pay, a safe working environment, and grievance handling. The tribunal noted that the notice-pay point and safe-working-environment point did not appear in the claim form, and in any event the claimant was not dismissed by New Recruits Professional Services Ltd at the time the claim was presented, because he remained on the agency’s books until 11 July.

The tribunal identified section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 as the only potentially justiciable claim arising from the form, namely a request for written reasons for dismissal. It held that the claimant was not entitled to pursue that claim because he had not been dismissed by the respondent at the relevant time and had not been continuously employed for at least two years ending with the termination date. The tribunal also noted that the statutory exceptions in subsections (4) and (4A) did not apply.

The complaint was therefore struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded.