Case 4120662/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kyle Johnston v SLK Scaffolding Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4120662/2018
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kyle Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Kyle Johnston resigned from the respondents' employment on 30 May 2018, but had not shown that he had at least two years' continuous employment for the purposes of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondents established that his employment started on 13 September 2016, and the claimant failed to prove that payments received before that date were wages paid in respect of employment.
Because the qualifying service requirement was not met, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal and dismissed the claim. In light of that decision, the tribunal said it was unnecessary to consider the claimant's case management applications of 6 March 2019, including the deferred application about combining this case with the linked claim brought by the claimant's mother, Mrs Christine Ferguson, against the same respondents. The linked case was allowed to proceed to a final hearing on the merits for full disposal, including remedy if appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated this as a complaint of unfair constructive dismissal and dismissed it as being outwith jurisdiction because the claimant did not establish the two years' continuous employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 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.