Case 6020132/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Dehaarte Wiseman v Sysco GB Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020132/2025
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Dehaarte Wiseman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal after being dismissed for gross misconduct on 6 February 2025. The respondent applied for the claim to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that the claimant had been employed from 13 March 2023 to 6 February 2025 and therefore did not have two years' continuous service.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing, and the Tribunal proceeded in his absence after attempts were made to contact him. The Tribunal considered the respondent's bundle and the claimant's written objections, including his acceptance that he was about five weeks short of two years' service.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was not advancing an automatically unfair dismissal claim and that his complaints about procedure and the respondent's motivation were not relevant to the qualifying service requirement. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it under section 108 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | 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.