M Reynolds v , Solicitor S Myles and A Myles, and 1 other — 2024

The preliminary hearing concerned who was the claimant’s correct employer and whether she had sufficient continuity of service to bring a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal, or alternatively to rely on continuity through associated employers. The Tribunal recorded agreed facts that the claimant signed a contract with Butterflies Nursery School - Kingsway East on 15 September 2022 and a separate contract with Butterflies Nursery School - Emmock Woods on 5 March 2024. The two nurseries were separate legal entities, with separate bank accounts, HMRC registrations, SSSC registration, and separate partnership agreements.

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s March 2024 contract with Emmock Woods was the starting point. It held that the contract identified a single employer and a start date of 5 March 2024, and that there was an intention to create binding legal relations. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant only worked at Emmock Woods from that date, and that the absence of any express resignation from Kingsway East did not change that position. It also accepted that the continued payment through Kingsway East and the P45 in that name were the result of human error.

On that basis, the Tribunal found that the claimant’s employer was Stacey Myles and Anne Myles t/a Butterflies Nursery School - Emmock Woods, and that her period of employment with that employer ran from 5 March 2024 to 12 July 2024. The Tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required continuity of service under s.108 ERA 1996.

The Tribunal went on, for completeness, to consider the claimant’s alternative continuity argument under s.218(6) ERA 1996 and s.231 ERA 1996. It held that Gardiner v London Borough of Merton remained the relevant authority on the meaning of “company” in that context, rather than Glasgow City Council v Unison, because the latter concerned equal pay legislation. It also found that there was insufficient evidence that Emmock Woods had control over Kingsway East. The claim was dismissed.