Customer services assistant on 0-hour contract fails to meet unfair dismissal qualifying period
A customer services assistant who claimed she was dismissed from her 0-hour contract had less than two years' service and her claim was dismissed. The tribunal also found her claim was out of time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #qualifying-period
- #0-hour-contract
- #unfair-dismissal
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant started employment on 5 or 6 March 2020 as a customer services assistant.
- The claimant claims she was dismissed by telephone on 11 June 2021.
- The respondent considers the claimant remains employed on a 0-hour contract.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the effective date of termination.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not submitted within three months of the alleged dismissal.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a customer services assistant on 5 or 6 March 2020.
-
Agreed to 0-hour contract
Claimant agreed to a 0-hour contract, effective from 1 September 2020.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance, which was later examined by the tribunal.
-
Alleged dismissal
Claimant says she was dismissed by Ms Denise Spillane in a 1 minute 21 second telephone call.
-
Respondent denies dismissal
Claimant's line manager emailed to clarify she had not been dismissed.
-
ET1 claim submitted
Claimant submitted her unfair dismissal claim to the tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Truscott QC dismissed the claim for lack of qualifying service.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Truscott KC refused the reconsideration application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had the necessary two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether the claim was submitted in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant started work in March 2020 and alleged she was dismissed in June 2021, giving her less than two years' service.
- The claim was also submitted in September 2021, more than three months after the alleged dismissal.
- The respondent argued the claimant remained employed on a 0-hour contract, but the tribunal considered the claim at its highest and still found it had no jurisdiction.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees must have at least two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless an exception applies.
- Claims must be submitted to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination.
- A 0-hour contract does not necessarily mean employment has ended; check your employment status before claiming dismissal.
- If you believe you have been dismissed, get written confirmation from your employer to avoid disputes over the date of dismissal.
When a dismissal claim fails before it starts
This case shows how strict the legal hurdles are for unfair dismissal claims. The customer services assistant believed she had been dismissed during a short phone call, but the tribunal never reached the question of whether the dismissal was fair or unfair. Instead, the claim was thrown out at a preliminary stage because the claimant did not meet two fundamental requirements: she had not worked for the employer for two years, and she had not submitted her claim in time.
The claimant started work in March 2020 and later agreed to a 0-hour contract. She alleged she was dismissed on 11 June 2021, but the employer said she remained employed. Even taking the claimant's version at its highest, her continuous service was only about 15 months — well short of the two-year qualifying period. She also submitted her claim on 30 September 2021, which was more than three months after the alleged dismissal.
What the employer did right
Compass Group UK & Ireland Limited maintained that the claimant was still employed, and its line manager emailed the claimant to clarify that she had not been dismissed. This communication helped the employer show there was no clear termination. The tribunal noted that the claimant had accepted a 0-hour contract, which meant her employment relationship continued even if she was not given shifts.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that unfair dismissal protection is not automatic. Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring a standard unfair dismissal claim unless they fall within an exception, such as whistleblowing or discrimination. The claimant raised whistleblowing at the hearing, but the tribunal found this was not part of her original claim. Anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim should check their length of service and the time limit before proceeding.
Similar cases
Claim dismissed after employee prioritised son's hospitalisation over tribunal deadline
A former employee's breach of contract claim against Away Resorts Limited was struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim on time, despite his son's hospitalisation and home flooding.
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.
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.
HGV driver dismissed for misconduct: no jurisdiction because service under two years
An HGV driver with just over a year's service was dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal claim because he lacked the required two years' continuous service and could not identify any statutory exception.