AV Sales Manager's unfair dismissal claim fails over start date dispute
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim by an AV Sales Manager who had less than two years' service because his employment started later than he claimed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #continuous-employment
- #qualifying-service
- #preliminary-hearing
- #start-date-dispute
- #consultancy-arrangement
Key facts
- Mr Goody worked for Electec Electrical Ltd as an AV Sales Manager.
- His employment ended on 15th September 2021.
- The dispute was over whether his employment began on 1st August 2019 or 15th October 2019.
- Mr Goody had worked for Lightplan Works until 15th October 2019.
- He received his first payslip from Electec on 25th October 2019, with a join date of 15th October 2019.
- The tribunal found that Mr Goody was not employed until 15th October 2019.
Timeline
-
Lunch meeting
Mr Goody and Mr Pritchard met for lunch. Mr Goody claims he was offered a job; Mr Pritchard says it was a discussion.
-
WhatsApp message about AV job
Mr Goody sent a message asking if a potential job should be treated as an Electec AV job.
-
Offer letter sent
Mr Tilley emailed Mr Goody an offer letter for the role of AV Sales Manager, with a start date to be agreed.
-
Welcome message
Mr Pritchard sent a WhatsApp message welcoming Mr Goody to the team and looking forward to a new chapter in October.
-
Holiday start
Mr Goody went on holiday until 4th October 2019.
-
Contract sent
Mr Tilley emailed Mr Goody a copy of his contract, which was not signed.
-
Start of employment
Mr Goody resigned from Lightplan Works and began working from the Electec office. He accepted set hours and salary.
-
Employment ended
Mr Goody's employment with Electec ended.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard evidence on the preliminary issue of continuous employment.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed Mr Goody's claims for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payment due to lack of qualifying service.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment, specifically whether his employment began on 1 August 2019 or 15 October 2019.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and a statutory redundancy payment.
Key reason: The claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. His employment began on 15 October 2019, not 1 August 2019 as he argued.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your employment start date carefully — a difference of a few weeks can mean you lack the two years' service needed for unfair dismissal protection.
- If you work informally before a formal start date, that period may not count towards continuous employment unless there is a clear employment contract.
- Keep records of your start date, including your contract, payslips, and any correspondence that confirms when your employment began.
- If you are unsure about your start date, seek legal advice early — a preliminary hearing on this issue can determine the outcome of your claim.
When does employment really start?
This case shows how critical the exact start date of employment can be for unfair dismissal claims. The claimant, an AV Sales Manager, argued that he began working for Electec Electrical Ltd on 1 August 2019 after a lunch meeting where he believed he was offered the job. However, the tribunal found that the employment relationship did not begin until 15 October 2019, when he resigned from his previous job and started working from Electec's office.
The difference of just over two months meant the claimant had only 1 year and 11 months of service when he was dismissed — short of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection. His claims were dismissed at a preliminary hearing before the merits were even considered.
What could have been done differently?
The tribunal noted that the claimant continued to work for his previous employer until mid-October and that his communications with Electec during August and September suggested a consultancy-type arrangement rather than employment. For example, a WhatsApp message showed he was free to decide whether to come into the office. If the claimant had sought a clear written contract or confirmation of his start date from the outset, the dispute might have been avoided.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the legal definition of 'employment' depends on when a person actually starts working under a contract, not when discussions or informal arrangements begin. For anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim, verifying the exact start date — ideally with documentary evidence — is essential. A few weeks can make all the difference.
Similar cases
Pizza maker's start date dispute: a preliminary win on employer identity but qualifying service still in doubt
A Cardiff tribunal ruled that a pizza maker's continuous employment began on 14 February 2020, not earlier as claimed, leaving his unfair dismissal claim dependent on a later hearing about his summary dismissal.
Claim dismissed: train maintainer lacked two years' continuous employment
A preliminary hearing ruled that a train maintainer did not have sufficient continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, as his earlier work was as a self-employed contractor.
Strike out revoked: disputed continuous service must go to full hearing
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was initially struck out for lack of service, but the tribunal revoked that decision after realising the claimant's representations were overlooked. The dispute over continuous employment will now be heard at a full hearing.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.