Agency worker's unfair dismissal claim struck out due to short service and early conciliation error
A security officer who worked for only a few weeks had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he lacked two years' service and had used the wrong company for early conciliation. His discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #religion-or-belief-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #agency-worker
- #early-conciliation-error
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the second respondent as a security officer from December 2021.
- The claimant was placed at the first respondent on 17 December 2021 and at the third respondent on 3 and 4 January 2022.
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of race and religion.
- The claimant had not been employed for two years, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction for unfair dismissal.
- The early conciliation certificate was obtained against a related company, not the correct employer.
- The discrimination claims were not struck out as they had potential factual disputes.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with the second respondent as a security officer.
-
First placement
Claimant was placed as a security officer at the first respondent.
-
Second placement start
Claimant was placed at the third respondent on 3 and 4 January 2022.
-
Early conciliation period
Early conciliation from 12 to 14 January 2022, but against a related company, not the correct employer.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
-
Previous hearing
At a previous hearing, the second respondent was renamed to CN Security Limited.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hybrid hearing at London Central Employment Tribunal to consider strike-out applications.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the unfair dismissal claims should be struck out for lack of jurisdiction due to the claimant's short service, and whether the discrimination claims should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claims against all three respondents because he had not been employed for two years, meaning the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The discrimination claims were not struck out, as they raised factual disputes that should be heard at a full hearing.
- Unfair dismissal claims: struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
- Discrimination claims: allowed to proceed.
- No compensation awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees generally need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless an exception applies.
- Early conciliation must be obtained against the correct employer, not a related company, or the claim may be invalid.
- Agency workers may not be considered employees of the client company, limiting their ability to claim unfair dismissal against that client.
- Discrimination claims do not require a minimum service period and can proceed even if unfair dismissal claims are struck out.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the strict procedural requirements that can trip up claimants, especially those representing themselves. The security officer had only been employed for a few weeks when he was withdrawn from two placements—first over a dispute about his shoes and being clean-shaven, and then after a disagreement with a colleague. He believed he had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of race and religion. However, his unfair dismissal claim was doomed from the start because he had not worked for the required two years. The tribunal also noted that there was no clear evidence he had been dismissed or resigned, further weakening the claim.
What the respondents could have done differently
The respondents successfully argued that the unfair dismissal claims should be struck out, but they failed to get the discrimination claims thrown out. The tribunal found that the discrimination allegations raised factual disputes that needed to be tested at a full hearing. For example, the claimant alleged that his treatment over his appearance and the dispute with a colleague were linked to his race and religion. The respondents could have provided clearer evidence to show that the decisions were based on legitimate business reasons, but the tribunal decided that this was a matter for trial.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that unfair dismissal claims are not available to short-service employees, regardless of how unfair the treatment may seem. However, discrimination claims have no service requirement and can provide a route to justice for agency workers and others with limited tenure. The early conciliation error also shows the importance of naming the correct employer—using a related company's name can invalidate the claim. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, it is crucial to check the exact legal name of the employer and to seek advice on the applicable time limits and service requirements.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Taxi driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed as out of time
A taxi driver who waited over six months to bring his claim after Uber deactivated his account has had his case thrown out by the Nottingham tribunal for being well outside the three-month time limit.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.