Mrs. G. Statkute v Syft Online Limited T/A Indeed Flex — 2021

The tribunal heard Mrs G. Statkute's unfair dismissal claim against Syft Online Limited T/A Indeed Flex at a preliminary hearing on 24 March 2022. The issue was whether she was an employee at the effective date of termination and whether she had two years' continuous service. The claim was struck out because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal complaint on the facts found.

The tribunal found that the claimant was engaged as an agency worker under section 3 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, not as an employee. It accepted the respondent's terms and conditions, which said the arrangement was a contract for services and that no contract existed between assignments. Applying the factual matrix and the employee status authorities cited, including Autoclenz, Uber, Carmichael and Ready Mixed Concrete, the tribunal found there was personal service but no sufficient control and no obligation on the respondent to provide work or on the claimant to accept it.

On service, the tribunal found the claimant first undertook an assignment on 3 August 2019 and that her access to the platform was disabled on 28 June 2021. It rejected the claimant's suggested earlier start date of 14 June 2019, noting the evidence showed she became a verified flexer on 28 June 2019 and that the terms provided for no contract between assignments. The tribunal concluded that, even if she had been an employee, she had less than two years' continuous service for the purposes of section 108 ERA 1996.

The result was that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction and, alternatively, dismissed because the claimant was not an employee and did not have the requisite service. No monetary remedy was awarded.