Mr W B Long v Steadfast Security Solutions Limited — 2019

This was a public preliminary hearing concerning whether Mr W B Long had two years' continuous service with Steadfast Security Solutions Limited for the purpose of a statutory redundancy payment. He had worked as a security officer at Sunderland Football Club, initially transferred to the respondent under TUPE on 18 April 2016. The tribunal recorded that he had been on long-term sick leave and had submitted a Statement of Fitness to Work on 4 May 2017 because of Adenocarcinoma NOS.

The central dispute was whether the claimant's employment had ended and then restarted, or whether it had continued through the relevant period. The claimant said a P45 issued around 9 July 2017 had been issued in error and that he remained employed, later moving onto a zero-hours basis. The respondent said he had chosen to retire in September 2017 in order to take his pension, that his employment ended on 23 September 2017, and that he was re-employed in January 2018. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the P45 and the later re-employment documents, including the pre-employment medical questionnaire completed on 14 January 2018 and the new employee form signed off on 15 January 2018.

The tribunal found that the claimant elected to take his state pension rather than continue receiving statutory sick pay, that he did not resign in writing, and that he retired with effect from 23 September 2017 before returning as a new employee in January 2018. On that basis, his continuity of employment was broken by more than two weeks. When the later employment ended on 10 January 2018, he therefore did not have the two years' continuous service required by section 155 ERA 1996 for a statutory redundancy payment, so that claim was dismissed.

Because the claimant was found not to have the necessary qualifying service, the tribunal did not need to determine whether Alpha should be joined as a second respondent. The judgment also noted section 108 ERA 1996, but said unfair dismissal was not claimed in this case.