Security officer loses unfair dismissal claim due to less than two years' service
A security officer with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. His claim for unlawful deduction from wages also failed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #unlawful-deduction-from-wages
- #strike-out
- #less-than-two-years-service
- #minimum-hours-obligation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for less than two years.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
- The respondent met its minimum hours obligation to offer 259.42 hours over 12 months.
- The claimant was offered 707.49 hours between September 2020 and January 2021.
- The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed on the merits.
Timeline
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show why his unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out due to less than two years' service.
-
Respondent notified claimant
The respondent's counsel informed the claimant about the strike out warning.
-
Claimant responded
The claimant emailed the tribunal with grounds to resist strike out, but did not address the two-year requirement.
-
Strike out judgment sent
Employment Judge Baty struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Full merits hearing
Employment Judge M Aspinall heard the unlawful deduction from wages claim and dismissed it.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the strike out judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge M Aspinall refused the application for reconsideration of the merits judgment.
-
Reconsideration of strike out refused
Employment Judge Baty refused the application for reconsideration of the strike out judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had the required two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether the employer had made unlawful deductions from wages by failing to offer enough work.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, as the claimant had less than two years' service. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed on the merits because the employer offered 707.49 hours of work between September 2020 and January 2021, well above the contractual minimum of 259.42 hours over 12 months. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Zero-hours or variable-hours contracts often include a minimum hours obligation; check your contract to understand what you are guaranteed.
- If you receive a strike-out warning from the tribunal, respond promptly and address the specific legal issue raised.
- Keep copies of all communications and contracts; failing to disclose relevant evidence can harm your case.
When length of service blocks an unfair dismissal claim
This case shows how the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims can be a hard barrier. The security officer had been employed for less than two years when his employment ended. Despite his efforts to argue the case, the tribunal had no choice but to strike out the unfair dismissal claim because it lacked jurisdiction.
The wages claim: a question of hours
The officer also claimed that his employer, Cordant Security Ltd, had made unlawful deductions from his wages by not offering enough work. His contract contained a 'minimum hours obligation' of 259.42 hours over 12 months. However, the evidence showed that between September 2020 and January 2021 alone, the company offered him 707.49 hours – nearly three times the annual minimum. The tribunal therefore found that the employer had met its obligations and dismissed the claim.
What the employer did right
Cordant Security Ltd kept clear records of the hours offered and worked. This allowed them to demonstrate that they had exceeded their contractual duty. The company also responded promptly to the strike-out warning and instructed counsel to represent them at the hearing.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant did not address the two-year service issue when given the chance to respond to the strike-out warning. He also failed to disclose relevant messages about a possible alternative contract until after the hearing, which the tribunal refused to consider as new evidence. Acting promptly and providing all relevant documents from the start might have strengthened his position.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder that procedural rules matter. The two-year qualifying period is a strict requirement for most unfair dismissal claims, and failing to meet it means the tribunal cannot hear the case. It also highlights the importance of understanding your contract's terms – especially if you work under a variable-hours arrangement.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to short service, but wage deduction claim succeeds
A former employee who worked for less than two years at Morecambe Bay Wines Ltd had their unfair dismissal claim struck out, but won £1,339.64 in an unlawful deduction from wages claim.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal complaint struck out by the tribunal. Other discrimination claims remain pending.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to less than two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because they had worked for the employer for less than two years. However, they won a small award for unpaid notice pay.