Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Static Maintenance and Electrical Engineer from 4 December 2019 to July 2021.
- The claimant did not have two years' service, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove that his supervisor made abusive or racist comments.
- The claimant was dismissed due to poor performance and capability concerns.
- The respondent accepted that the claimant was owed £803.88 in holiday pay.
- The claimant's claims for direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Static Maintenance and Electrical Engineer at Wembley Park.
-
Alleged abusive comments
Claimant alleged supervisor Mr Abels called him abusive names; tribunal found not proven.
-
First grievance email
Claimant emailed manager Mr McNeil about operational issues and Mr Abels' behaviour; no response received.
-
Second grievance submitted
Claimant sent a grievance to HR about his treatment, which was not upheld.
-
Mediation meeting
A mediation meeting was held with claimant, Mr Abels, Mr McNeil, and HR.
-
Grievance outcome
Claimant's grievance was not upheld; he did not appeal.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of poor performance and capability.
-
Appeal meeting
Appeal meeting held; dismissal upheld on 11 August 2021.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment given
Tribunal dismissed most claims but awarded £803.88 holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant could bring an unfair dismissal claim despite having less than two years' service, and whether he had been subjected to race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or unlawful deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, as the claimant had only 1 year 7 months' service and no exceptional circumstances applied.
All discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not proved that his supervisor made abusive or racist comments, or that any treatment was because of race.
The claimant succeeded on his holiday pay claim, with the respondent accepting that £803.88 was owed. This sum was ordered to be paid.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot claim unfair dismissal unless they fall within specific protected categories (e.g., whistleblowing, discrimination).
- Race discrimination claims require clear evidence linking the treatment to the protected characteristic – allegations alone are not enough.
- Holiday pay is a statutory right and can be claimed regardless of length of service – keep records of untaken leave.
- Raising a grievance does not automatically protect against dismissal if the grievance is not upheld and there is no evidence of victimisation.
A case of timing and evidence
This case illustrates two important hurdles for employment claims: the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, and the need for solid evidence in discrimination claims. The claimant, a Static Maintenance and Electrical Engineer, was dismissed after about 19 months due to poor performance and capability concerns. Because he had not reached the two-year service threshold, the tribunal had no legal power to hear his unfair dismissal claim – even if the process had been flawed.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant alleged that his supervisor made abusive and racist comments, but the tribunal found the evidence did not support this. The supervisor denied the allegations, and the claimant's own witness statement did not mention the alleged comments. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not raised the issue of racism in his grievance at the time, which weakened his case. This highlights that tribunals expect contemporaneous complaints and corroborating evidence to support discrimination claims.
What the employer did right – and wrong
Birdsall Services Limited had a process: it held a mediation meeting, considered a grievance, and conducted an appeal. However, the claimant's lack of service meant the fairness of that process was not tested. The respondent did accept liability for the holiday pay, which was a straightforward contractual issue. For employees, this case is a reminder that even if a main claim fails, smaller claims like unpaid holiday pay can still succeed.
The outcome
The tribunal awarded £803.88 in holiday pay but dismissed all other claims. The case shows that without the required service or strong evidence of discrimination, employees face an uphill battle in tribunal.
Similar cases
Former employee's race discrimination claim dismissed but holiday pay awarded
A former employee's claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination failed due to time limits, but the tribunal awarded £243.54 for unpaid holiday pay.
Employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike out and £15,000 award
A local authority employee was awarded £15,483 after her employer's response was struck out for failing to comply with case management orders, leaving the tribunal unable to hold a fair hearing.
Trainee duct fitter awarded £27,624 after race discrimination over pay and work allocation
A black trainee duct fitter was paid less and given more labouring work than white comparators. The tribunal awarded £27,624 for race discrimination and unpaid wages.
Dismissed for fuel card misuse: a flawed process that still fell short of unfair dismissal
A former personal assistant was dismissed for gross misconduct over fuel card use, but the tribunal found the process unfair. However, due to a break in service she lacked two years' continuous employment, so her unfair dismissal claim failed.