Claimant v Greenacre Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of any respondent at common law or under s83 Equality Act 2010, being employed by her umbrella company Paystream My Max. Without employment status, the notice pay claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under rule 37(1)(a).
All claims against Respondent 2 were struck out because the claimant did not commence ACAS conciliation before presenting her ET1 naming Respondent 2 as a respondent, meaning the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear any claims against her under rule 37(1)(a).
All claims against Respondent 2 were struck out because the claimant did not commence ACAS conciliation before presenting her ET1 naming Respondent 2 as a respondent, meaning the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear any claims against her under rule 37(1)(a).
Facts
The claimant was engaged to work for the London Borough of Ealing through Greenacre Recruitment Limited, but was actually employed by umbrella company Paystream My Max. The claimant brought claims including notice pay and discrimination claims against all three respondents including Miss Sharron Rooney, who worked for the Borough. The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine employment status and jurisdictional issues.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the notice pay claim because the claimant was not an employee of any respondent, being employed by an umbrella company. All claims against Respondent 2 (Sharron Rooney) were struck out for lack of jurisdiction as no ACAS early conciliation was completed for her. Claims against Respondent 1 would proceed under s.55 as an employment services provider, and against Respondent 3 under s.41 as a principal with vicarious liability for Respondent 2's acts.
Practical note
Agency workers employed through umbrella companies lack employee status against the end-user or agency, and ACAS early conciliation must be completed for each named individual respondent to establish tribunal jurisdiction.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216649/2023
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No