Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant was employed by the second respondent only, not the first respondent. The tribunal found no basis for dual employment applying Cairns v Visteon and Patel v Specsavers. Additionally, the claimant had less than 2 years' continuous employment required for unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the second respondent (Challenge-TRG Recruitment Limited) and brought an unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent (Amazon UK Services Limited). The claimant sought to argue she was employed by both entities. She had less than 2 years' continuous employment.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim against Amazon on the basis that the claimant was only employed by the recruitment agency, not Amazon, applying established case law that an employee cannot have two employers for the same job. Additionally, the claimant lacked the required 2 years' service for an unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Agency workers placed at an end-user's site remain employees of the agency only, and cannot bring unfair dismissal claims against the end-user unless there is something unusual to establish dual employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314706/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No