Mrs P Allen v Hamberley Care (Wixams) Ltd — 2024

Mrs P Allen began full-time employment with Hamberley Properties (FV) Milngavie Ltd on 13 December 2021 as a Business Administrator and later worked two days a week for Hamberley Care 1 Ltd from 31 May 2022 before moving to full-time work with the respondent in October 2022. She was dismissed on 15 January 2024 with one month’s pay in lieu of notice, giving an effective date of termination of 15 February 2024. The preliminary issue was whether she had enough continuous service to pursue her unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal applied s.218(6) and s.231 ERA 1996 and considered whether the two companies were associated employers at the time the claimant moved from HP to the respondent. The claimant was found credible. The tribunal accepted that she had not been told that the transfer meant a change of employer, that the Notification of Change form did not say so, that she did not receive a new statement of terms and conditions, and that she did not receive a P45 when she moved. It also accepted her evidence that, had she known she had less than two years’ continuous service, she would not have brought the claim.

The respondent argued that HP and the respondent were separate companies in different shareholding groups and that the claimant’s move amounted to a new employment. The tribunal found that evidence lacked documentary corroboration, specificity and transparency. It attached weight to the Companies House material showing PCA as a person with significant control over HP, the respondent and their umbrella companies, and to the fact that the companies shared directors and correspondence addresses. Having also considered the day-to-day employment arrangements, the tribunal inferred that PCA controlled both companies and that HP and the respondent were associated employers.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant’s period of employment ran continuously from 13 December 2021 to 15 February 2024, so she had the requisite length of service to pursue her unfair dismissal claim. The judgment therefore determined the jurisdiction issue in the claimant’s favour and directed that the claim proceed to a final hearing. No remedy was awarded at this stage.