Claimant v SLAM Transport Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant resigned on 26 August 2022 via text message (drafted by Mrs Oanta but authorised by claimant). Employment therefore terminated by claimant himself. Claimant did not have requisite two years' continuous service to bring unfair dismissal claim. Claim also presented out of time (almost 11 months late) with no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.
Tribunal found claimant was likely a worker (not self-employed) for the second respondent from August 2022 onwards, based on degree of control and fact respondents sought replacement rather than claimant providing substitute. However, last deduction was at latest 9 March 2023 (end of sick leave entitlement). Claim presented outside three-month time limit. Claimant led no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to present in time or that it was presented within reasonable period thereafter.
Facts
Claimant, a Romanian HGV driver/shunter with limited English, worked at Amazon Darlington site from approximately December 2020. He had a contract of employment with first respondent from 4 April 2021. In August 2022, through Mrs Oanta (who was working in administrative capacity for both respondents), claimant sent text resigning to work through his limited company VAD and INA Ltd for second respondent. Claimant says he didn't understand he was ending employment. He went off sick in February 2023 and after returning from leave in March 2023 was told he could not return. ACAS conciliation commenced 30 April 2023, claim filed 27 July 2023.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant resigned from first respondent employment on 26 August 2022 via text (though drafted by Mrs Oanta, it was authorised by claimant who knew content shortly after). Employment terminated at that point. Claimant therefore lacked two years' service for unfair dismissal. Claims also presented almost 11 months out of time with no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to present sooner. Tribunal found claimant was likely a worker (not self-employed) for second respondent but wages claim still out of time. Tribunal dismissed claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
Where employees are moved to operating through limited companies, clear contemporaneous documentation is essential; ambiguous arrangements involving intermediaries (here Mrs Oanta acting for both parties) create evidential difficulties, but claimants still bear burden of proving employment status and meeting time limits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501717/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- HGV driver / shunter
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No