Did not attend and was not represented v Staffline Recruitment Limited — 2021

The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The tribunal considered her claim form, the documents she had submitted in advance, and oral evidence from the respondent's account manager. The issue before the tribunal was whether the claimant was an employee of Staffline Recruitment Limited so that she could qualify for a statutory redundancy payment.

The tribunal found that the claimant had worked for around four years at Williams Lea at Normanton, supplied through a contractual chain from Williams Lea to DHL and then to the respondent. It found that the respondent interviewed the claimant and carried out checks, including DBS clearance, and that she was paid hourly on the basis of timesheets generated by a facial recognition system. The tribunal was not satisfied that she had signed a written contract with the respondent, and it heard no evidence that she had seen, read, or accepted the standard terms in the respondent's contract for service and contractor handbook.

On the basis of how the arrangement operated in practice, the tribunal found that Williams Lea supervised and controlled the claimant at all times, that the respondent only approved holiday requests if they were compatible with Williams Lea's requirements, and that any performance or discipline issues would have been addressed by the respondent only if raised by Williams Lea. Although the respondent administered a £1,000 loyalty payment at the end of the PPI project, the tribunal treated that as part of the commercial arrangements between the businesses rather than as evidence of an employment relationship with the respondent.

Applying the question whether the respondent exercised a sufficient degree of direct control for a contract of employment, the tribunal concluded that the necessary level of control did not exist. It therefore held that the claimant was not the respondent's employee and dismissed the statutory redundancy payment claim.