Vasilica Maria Chis v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2020

The hearing concerned preliminary jurisdictional issues. The claimant had worked for the respondent under casual worker agreements and permanent contracts at different times. The tribunal found that the casual worker agreements were genuine worker arrangements and did not confer employee status, noting that the claimant could refuse shifts and that there was a clear difference between the casual and permanent arrangements.

For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended at the end of June 2019 when she became a casual worker. The claim lodged on 21 December 2019 was out of time, and it had been reasonably practicable to bring it earlier. The tribunal also found that, even on the claimant's wider case about the relevant period, she did not have two years' continuous employment as an employee.

For the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the alleged discrimination concerned the client's request for the claimant's removal from site and any related complaint against the respondent had crystallised by 24 June 2019, or at the latest by mid-July 2019. The claimant knew the relevant facts by 1 July 2019 and did not lodge the claim until 21 December 2019. The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time and made no findings on the merits of either claim.