Case 4110036/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Colin Flannigan v J S Strachan trading as Strachan Haulage st and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4110036/2019
- Decision date
- 27 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Colin Flannigan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on employment status and continuity of service rather than a final merits decision. The tribunal found that Mr Flannigan had been employed by J S Strachan trading as Strachan Haulage from 2 June 2015, relying on the bank statements, the signed terms and conditions recording that start date, and the evidence of regular work and control. It rejected the 1st respondent's case that he was self-employed before 11 June 2018.
The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the claimant's employment transferred to Corporate Road Solutions 24:7 Ltd. It found that the claimant had remained employed by the 1st respondent, had only been seconded to work on the Mitsubishi contract, and had not entered into any contract with the 2nd respondent. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that he did not agree to any transfer and noted that no P45 or signed contract from the 2nd respondent was produced.
The tribunal further found that there was no break in continuity when the claimant worked for Alan Hannah in November 2017, accepting that this had been arranged with the 1st respondent and was treated as holiday pay. It held that the claimant's employment with the 1st respondent ended on 1 August 2019 when he declined to continue under the arrangements with the 2nd respondent. On that basis, the claimant had sufficient qualifying service to bring his unfair dismissal and redundancy claims against the 1st respondent.
The claims so far as directed against the 2nd respondent were dismissed. No merits findings were made on unfair dismissal or redundancy entitlement, and the tribunal directed that the matter should proceed by case management to a further hearing on the substantive issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant was employed by the 1st respondent from 2 June 2015 to 1 August 2019, was not employed by the 2nd respondent, and had sufficient qualifying service for his unfair dismissal claim to proceed against the 1st respondent. No merits decision on unfair dismissal was made; the claims against the 2nd respondent were dismissed. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant had sufficient qualifying service with the 1st respondent for the redundancy claim to proceed, but it did not decide the merits of any redundancy entitlement. No employment relationship with the 2nd respondent was found and the claims against it were dismissed. | Other | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.