Prisoner work placement dismissed after two months: claims fail on jurisdiction and time limits
A former prisoner working at Bernard Matthews had his unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and sex discrimination claims struck out because of short service, late presentation and lack of evidence.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 27 September 2021 to 10 December 2021.
- The claimant presented his claim on 13 May 2022, after ACAS early conciliation from 20 April to 5 May 2022.
- The claimant had less than two years' service, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction for unfair dismissal.
- The wrongful dismissal claim was presented about two months out of time.
- The sex discrimination claim was based on the claimant's belief that a female employee would not have been dismissed.
- The tribunal found no evidence linking the dismissal to sex; the treatment was due to the claimant's prisoner status and conviction.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Bernard Matthews Foods Ltd.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended; he was either dismissed or his attendance was withdrawn by the prison.
-
Claimant wrote complaint letter
The claimant wrote a detailed letter to the respondent alleging discrimination due to his prisoner status and threatening proceedings.
-
Time limit for wrongful dismissal claim expired
The three-month time limit for presenting a wrongful dismissal claim expired.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The claimant began ACAS early conciliation.
-
ACAS early conciliation ended
The ACAS early conciliation period ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his ET1 claim form, which was handwritten and posted.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Liz Ord struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction and extended time for the sex discrimination claim.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Employment Judge King struck out the wrongful dismissal claim as out of time and the sex discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospects.
-
Judgment sent
The reserved judgment was issued and sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the wrongful dismissal claim (whether it was reasonably practicable to present it in time) and whether the sex discrimination claim had reasonable prospects of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed at an earlier hearing because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
- The wrongful dismissal claim was struck out as it was presented about two months after the three-month time limit, and the claimant could not show it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time.
- The sex discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant alleged that a female employee would not have been dismissed, but the tribunal found no evidence linking the dismissal to sex; the treatment was due to his prisoner status and conviction.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Wrongful dismissal claims must be presented within three months of the dismissal date; missing this deadline by even a few weeks can be fatal unless you can show it was not reasonably practicable to present on time.
- A sex discrimination claim requires evidence that the treatment was because of sex, not just a belief that someone of another sex would have been treated differently.
- If you are a serving prisoner, you should seek advice early on time limits and jurisdiction, as prison delays may not excuse late claims.
Short service and late claims
This case shows how strict the employment tribunal rules on jurisdiction and time limits can be. The claimant, a former prisoner on a work placement at Bernard Matthews Foods Limited, was employed for only two and a half months. When his employment ended in December 2021, he did not present his claims until May 2022 — well past the three-month deadline for wrongful dismissal and beyond the one-year service threshold for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal had already struck out the unfair dismissal claim at an earlier hearing because the claimant had less than two years' service. That left only the wrongful dismissal and sex discrimination claims, both of which were dismissed at the second preliminary hearing.
Why the sex discrimination claim failed
The claimant argued that a female employee would not have been dismissed in similar circumstances. But the tribunal found no evidence to support that link. The real reason for the treatment was the claimant's status as a serving prisoner and his conviction, not his sex. Without any comparator or other evidence, the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
What the employer did right
Bernard Matthews successfully argued that the wrongful dismissal claim was out of time and that the sex discrimination claim lacked any factual basis. The tribunal agreed, noting that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the wrongful dismissal claim on time, even allowing for his imprisonment.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals will not extend time limits simply because a claimant is in prison or representing themselves. If you are bringing a claim, you must act quickly and gather evidence that directly links the treatment to a protected characteristic. Short-service employees also need to check whether they have any automatic unfair dismissal rights, such as whistleblowing or discrimination, which do not require two years' service.
Similar cases
Claim dismissed after employee fails to attend hearing
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide evidence to show his claim was filed in time.
Short service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service
A former employee who worked for Norpol Recycling Limited for less than two years had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he did not meet the qualifying period. The tribunal also found his disability discrimination claim was out of time.
Former employee's second claim struck out as vexatious after earlier dismissal
An employment tribunal has struck out a former employee's unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and whistleblowing claims as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success, after she had already lost a substantially similar claim against the same employer.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A former employee who failed to attend hearings and ignored tribunal orders had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal also noted he had less than two years' service, which normally bars such claims.