Miss Gisele H da Cruz Andrade v East London NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's status, continuity of employment, and whether her employment ended by redundancy. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that she had been on a fixed-term contract from 6 September 2016, but held that the written bank-worker documentation was not determinative and that the true nature of the arrangement had to be assessed from the reality of the relationship.

The tribunal found that from 6 September 2016 the claimant worked continuously on the CQUIN project as Ms Nixon's sole assistant, undertaking ongoing project work integrated into the respondent's organisation. It found the necessary mutuality of obligation, that the claimant was expected to perform the work and the respondent was expected to provide it, and that absences and holidays did not break continuity because they were covered by section 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Accordingly, the tribunal held that she was an employee from 6 September 2016 until 30 June 2019 and had the two years' qualifying service required to bring unfair dismissal and redundancy claims.

The tribunal further found that the claimant's employment ended on 30 June 2019 and did not continue afterwards. It held that the reason for termination was redundancy, because funding for the CQUIN team had been reduced by 50%, the claimant's substantive post was removed, and there was no continuing work for her in that team. The tribunal expressly stated that it was not deciding at this stage whether the redundancy dismissal was fair or unfair.