Mr M Brockway v Mitie Care and Custody Limited — 2023

The Tribunal determined the sole issue listed for the hearing: whether the claimant had the requisite two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant had worked for the respondent or its predecessors from March 2002, left in April 2021 to work for the prison service, and returned to the respondent in August 2021. He argued that he had been reinstated rather than re-employed.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's April 2021 departure was intended by both parties to end his employment with the respondent. His later return involved a written offer with a start date of 16 August 2021, and the absence of a signed contract was not inconsistent with a new period of employment. The reduced training requirement reflected his previous experience and accreditation and did not preserve continuity of employment.

The Tribunal concluded that any later use of the word "reinstatement" was not determinative because any arrangement preserving continuity would have needed to exist before or at the time of the absence. The claimant's continuous service therefore started in August 2021, leaving him without sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.