In person For the v Respondent — 2020

At the preliminary hearing on 9 March 2020, the tribunal considered whether the second and third respondents were properly named in proceedings brought against three companies in the same group. The claimant said she named all three because different company names appeared in correspondence and other documentation, and the tribunal considered the contract of employment, written particulars, P60, P45 and payslips.

The tribunal held that those employment documents showed the first respondent was the claimant's employer. It accepted the respondent's explanation that correspondence from other group companies, including the grievance investigator's involvement and the bonus scheme and pension administration documents, did not alter the contractual employment relationship. The tribunal also noted the claimant accepted that the first respondent was her employer under the contract.

Applying section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that employment means employment under a contract of employment and concluded that the first respondent was the employer. On that basis, the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.