The Unfair Dismissals Act did not apply to the employee due to insufficient length of service.

The Complainant stated that he commenced employment with the Respondent as a construction truck driver in March 2025. He explained that during his short period of employment he had been sent to a new site and was asked to undertake duties described as acting as a “traffic manager” between truck loads. He said that he refused to perform this role because he believed it created safety concerns and fell outside his normal duties as a driver. According to the Complainant, following this refusal he was told to go home. He stated that he attempted to contact his employer afterwards but believed that his calls were being avoided and he remained at home awaiting further instructions. The Complainant maintained that he understood his employment had effectively ended shortly thereafter. He accepted during the hearing that he had been employed for approximately one month and did not dispute the dates of commencement or dismissal as outlined by the Respondent.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant’s employment had ended by dismissal but raised a preliminary objection concerning jurisdiction under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had commenced employment on 13 March 2025 and that his employment ended on 9 April 2025. It was argued that regardless of whether the dates on the complaint form or those advanced by the Respondent were accepted, the period of employment amounted to only a matter of weeks. The Respondent relied on Section 2(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, which provides that an employee must have at least one year’s continuous service in order to bring a claim under the Act, unless a specific statutory exception applies. The Respondent stated that no such exception arose in this case and confirmed that the Complainant was not an apprentice or otherwise exempt from the statutory requirement.

The Adjudicating Officer considered the complaint form, written submissions from the Respondent, and the oral evidence given during the hearing. It was noted that both parties accepted that the Complainant had been dismissed and that his employment had lasted for a relatively short period. The Adjudicator examined s.2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, which provides that the legislation does not apply to employees who have less than one year’s continuous service with their employer at the date of dismissal, unless a statutory exception applies. The Adjudicator found that, whether the dates provided by the Complainant or those advanced by the Respondent were accepted, the duration of employment was measured in weeks rather than months. Furthermore, the Complainant himself acknowledged that his employment had lasted approximately one month. As no evidence was presented that the Complainant fell within any statutory exception, the Adjudicator concluded that the qualifying service requirement had not been met.

Employers should:

• Be aware that the Unfair Dismissals Acts generally require an employee to have at least one year’s continuous service before bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. However, this qualifying period does not remove the need for employers to manage dismissals carefully. Even where an employee has short service, disputes can still arise under other legislation such as the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Acts, equality legislation, or the Payment of Wages Act.  
   
  
• Ensure that job roles and duties are clearly outlined at the outset of employment. Where employees are asked to perform additional or different tasks, particularly in safety-sensitive environments such as construction sites, the rationale for those duties should be explained and proper safety procedures followed.  
   
  
• Keep accurate employment records, including start dates, role descriptions, and any disciplinary or dismissal decisions. These records can be crucial where preliminary jurisdictional issues arise before adjudicative bodies.         
  

The full case can be found here.