Mr A Catterson v Search Consultancy Ltd — 2021

The claimant brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal, alleging that he was dismissed on 31 July 2020. The tribunal found that he had been employed by the respondent from 23 April 2018 under an agency-style contract which stated that termination of an assignment was not termination of employment. After being furloughed in April 2020, he declined several requests to return to the Clydesdale Bank assignment until late July 2020. On 31 July 2020, Denise McGillivray emailed him that the bank would no longer require anyone who had not already returned to work, but the tribunal found that this communication ended the assignment only and did not communicate a dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant did not understand himself to have been dismissed on 31 July 2020 and only later formed that view after many months without contact from the respondent. It found that the respondent's later conduct was consistent with the employment relationship continuing: in the grievance appeal outcome, the claimant was told that he remained on the associate database and that alternative assignments would continue to be sought, no P45 was issued, a P60 was issued for the tax year to 5 April 2021, and the respondent's records showed him as 'active'. The tribunal relied on the approach in Gisda Cyf v Barratt and Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd in holding that the gap in assignments and contact did not itself evidence dismissal.

Because the claimant had not shown that the respondent terminated his contract of employment within section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal therefore did not need to decide the alternative time-limit issue under section 111(2) of ERA 1996.