EAT The claimant was dismissed and presented a claim for unfair dismissal. In his ET1, he asserted a belief that he had been dismissed because of his assertion of a statutory right. The form referred to the respondents having tried to have the claimant work in excess of 48 hours per week. At the time of his dismissal, he had been in the employment of the respondents for less than twelve months. At a pre-hearing review, the tribunal found that the claimant had declined to work more hours because he felt he was already working enough hours in that he was already working in excess of 48 hours per week. It held that, in those circumstances, it was not properly being contended that the dismissal was attributable to the assertion by him of a statutory right. That being so, since the claimant did not have the requisite year’s service, the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The EAT upheld an appeal against that decision in respect that the tribunal had asked itself the wrong question; the claimant’s case appeared to be that the respondents proposed to require him to comply with a requirement to work in excess of 48 hours per week, in contravention of the Working Time Regulations 1998. That being so, the one year qualification was disapplied by s.108(3)(dd) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Judges:
Lady Smith
Citations:
2007] IRLR 14, [2006] UKEAT 0019 – 06 – 1509, UKEATS/0019/06
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 108
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247805
