Case 3331578/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Pytka v And Grafton Merchanting GB Limited Public Preliminary Hearing — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331578/2018
- Decision date
- 14 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Pytka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Vowles at Reading on 14 February 2019. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by a solicitor and a witness. The only claim addressed in the judgment was unfair dismissal.
The tribunal held that Mr S Pytka did not have the two years' qualifying employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. On that basis, the tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal found the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying employment required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and it dismissed the claim under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.