Case 6017326/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ceyhan Aslan v Birkenstock — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017326/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ceyhan Aslan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ceyhan Aslan, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Birkenstock. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
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 because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was also given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.