Case 6001029/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Alexander Rollin v Redline Aviation Security Ltd (T/A Redline Assured Security) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001029/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Alexander Rollin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint at this stage. Employment Judge Davies recorded that, under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996, a claimant must have two years' service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, and the judgment said it appeared Mr Rollin had been employed for less than two years. The judge also recorded that none of the exceptions to s.108 appeared to apply.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint could not be brought in the Employment Tribunal and struck it out. The judgment did not determine any other substantive complaint.
The judgment expressly stated that the strike out did not affect the disability discrimination complaint, which was to be discussed further at a preliminary hearing that had been listed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Claimant appeared to have less than two years' service and no exception appeared to apply. The judgment also states that this did not affect the disability discrimination complaint, which was listed for a preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.