Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Site Manager from 20 September 2022 to 17 May 2023.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous employment, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction for unfair dismissal.
- The claimant alleged race discrimination, including a pattern of dismissing Asian employees and a comment about 'your people'.
- The respondent provided a table showing only one of five dismissed employees in the region was Asian.
- The claimant applied to amend his claim to add allegations about a manager's comments, but the application was refused.
- The tribunal ordered a deposit of £100 for the race discrimination claims, finding they had little reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Site Manager for Petrogas Group UK Limited.
-
Probation extended
Claimant's probation period was extended without his knowledge.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed without prior notice or disciplinary hearing.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant contacted ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued and claim presented
ACAS certificate issued and claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Strike out warning sent
Tribunal warned claimant that his unfair dismissal claim may be struck out for lack of qualifying service.
-
Preliminary hearing notice
Parties notified of preliminary hearing to consider strike out and deposit order.
-
Claimant's email naming individuals
Claimant emailed tribunal requesting copy of ET1 and naming four individuals involved.
-
Claimant's late email with narrative
Claimant sent a narrative email the day before the hearing, including new allegations about a manager's comment.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing held to determine strike out, deposit order, and amendment application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim could proceed despite his short service, and whether his race discrimination claims had enough merit to continue without a financial penalty.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, as the claimant had only eight months' service – well short of the two-year qualifying period.
The race discrimination claims were not struck out, but the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing, finding they had little reasonable prospect of success.
No compensation was awarded as the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and the discrimination claims are ongoing subject to the deposit order.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Race discrimination claims have no service requirement, but the tribunal can order a deposit if the claim appears weak.
- Applying to amend a claim at the last minute – especially the day before a hearing – is likely to be refused.
- Providing a clear, detailed claim form from the outset is essential; vague allegations may lead to deposit orders or strike-out.
A short service that barred the claim
This case illustrates a fundamental rule of UK employment law: most employees need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant, a site manager, was dismissed after only eight months and without any disciplinary process. However, because of his short service, the tribunal had no legal power to consider whether the dismissal was unfair. The claim was struck out at a preliminary stage.
The race discrimination claims survived – but with a cost
The claimant also alleged race discrimination, including a comment about 'your people' and a pattern of dismissing Asian staff. These claims were not struck out, but the tribunal found they had 'little reasonable prospect of success' and ordered a £100 deposit. This means the claimant can continue only if he pays the deposit, and may face costs if he loses.
What could have been done differently?
The claimant's case was hampered by vague original allegations and a last-minute attempt to add new details. The respondent provided a table showing only one of five dismissed employees in the region was Asian, undermining the pattern claim. A stronger, better-particularised claim from the outset might have avoided the deposit order.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that service length is a critical gateway for unfair dismissal claims. For employers, it shows that even a poorly handled dismissal can be immune from challenge if the employee lacks qualifying service – but discrimination claims have no such limit and must be taken seriously.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claims survive strike-out but three allegations face deposit orders
A tribunal has allowed a former hotel employee to amend his whistleblowing claim but ordered deposits of £50 each for three allegations it found had little reasonable prospect of success.
Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.
Dismissed over disputed Covid test results: unfair dismissal claim fails but wrongful dismissal succeeds
A former employee who was sacked for alleged dishonesty over a positive Covid-19 test in Cameroon lost his unfair dismissal claim but won £1,536.60 for wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally fair but the employer failed to give proper notice.
Race and religion discrimination claims struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A tribunal struck out a former technician's race and religion discrimination claims as out of time and without reasonable prospects. A deposit order was made for a constructive unfair dismissal claim.