Case 4110213/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. I Burca v Woods Interiors Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110213/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. I Burca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 7 February 2022, Employment Judge B Beyzade dismissed both claimants' unfair dismissal claims. The tribunal held that neither claimant had the two years' continuous service required by section 108 ERA 1996 at the effective date of termination, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear either unfair dismissal claim.
On the unlawful deduction of wages claims, the tribunal found that both claimants were workers within section 230 ERA 1996 and that it had jurisdiction under section 13 ERA 1996. Those claims were not determined on the merits at this hearing; instead, they were ordered to proceed to a final hearing by CVP on 10 March 2022, with document exchange deadlines of 21 February 2022 and 28 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant. Dismissed because the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction: the claimant had been employed for less than two continuous years ending with the effective date of termination, contrary to the section 108 ERA 1996 service requirement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant. Dismissed because the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction: the claimant had been employed for less than two continuous years ending with the effective date of termination, contrary to the section 108 ERA 1996 service requirement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the section 13 ERA 1996 claim because the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. The claim was listed to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the section 13 ERA 1996 claim because the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. The claim was listed to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 230 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.