Case 2206290/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A White and others v UAL Short Courses Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206290/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A White and others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that, for their short-course non-award-bearing teaching contracts, all of the lead claimants were employed by UAL Short Courses Limited, the first respondent, on limited-term contracts within s.235(2A) and (2B)(a) ERA 1996. It rejected the submission that a separate UCU collective agreement was incorporated into those contracts, and treated the second respondent's separate Study Abroad and degree-course arrangements as distinct employments that did not alter the employer analysis for the short-course work.
For each lead claimant, the tribunal identified the most recent short-course engagement before the ET1 and found that the contract terminated at the final teaching session, amounting to a dismissal under s.95(1)(b) ERA 1996. In the cases of Ms Vehbi and Mr Von Nordheim, the March 2020 Covid cancellations were treated as dismissals by the first respondent under s.95(1)(a), with an effective date of termination of 27 March 2020. The tribunal analysed the continuity question by working backwards through each claimant's engagements and applying ss.210-214 ERA 1996 week by week.
Although the tribunal accepted that the lead claimants were employees while performing the short-course contracts, it found that each claimant had breaks in continuity between engagements which were not covered by s.212 or s.213 ERA 1996. On that basis, none had two years' continuous service, so the unfair dismissal claims under s.94 ERA 1996 were dismissed. The tribunal also found that the lay-off and short-time provisions in s.147 ERA 1996 did not apply to any of the lead claimants.
Mr Thomas Von Nordheim's separate redundancy payment claim was dismissed for the same reason: he did not have the qualifying continuous service required by s.155 ERA 1996. The tribunal also held that the cancellation of his March 2020 "Couture Tailoring" course did not create a redundancy-pay entitlement through lay-off or short-time working. No tribunal monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the lead claimants were employees of UAL Short Courses Limited on limited-term contracts, but none had sufficient continuous service under ss.108 and 210-214 ERA 1996 to bring unfair dismissal claims. It identified dismissal within s.95 in each case, but dismissed the s.94 claims for lack of qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Mr Thomas Von Nordheim's redundancy payment claim was dismissed because he did not have two years' continuous employment. The tribunal also rejected any redundancy entitlement based on lay-off or short-time working, finding that s.147 did not apply. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Autoklenz Ltd v Belcher / Ready Mixed Concrete employee-status analysis
- s.230 ERA 1996 employee definition
- ss.210-214 ERA 1996 continuity of employment
- s.95(1)(a) and (b) ERA 1996 dismissal by termination of limited-term contract
- s.147 ERA 1996 lay-off and short-time
- Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC frustration
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.