Claimant v UAL Short Courses Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the lead claimants were employees and had been dismissed, none had sufficient continuous service to bring unfair dismissal claims. Periods between fixed-term contracts broke continuity of employment under s.210(4) ERA 1996.
Mr Von Nordheim's claim for redundancy payment was dismissed due to insufficient continuous service. The tribunal found breaks in continuity between his fixed-term contracts. Other claimants' redundancy claims had been previously disposed of.
This preliminary hearing focused on employment status and continuity of service issues only. The breach of contract (notice pay) claims remain to be determined if the case proceeds.
This preliminary hearing focused on employment status and continuity of service issues only. Unlawful deduction claims remain to be determined if the case proceeds.
This preliminary hearing focused on employment status and continuity of service issues only. Holiday pay claims remain to be determined if the case proceeds.
Facts
Approximately 800 tutors taught short courses for UAL Short Courses Ltd on a series of fixed-term contracts through an online portal system. Six lead claimants claimed unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and other claims following cessation of work during Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020. The tribunal heard detailed evidence about the contractual arrangements, the HPS online system for issuing contracts, and the employment history of each lead claimant spanning several years. The key factual issue was whether gaps between fixed-term contracts broke continuity of employment.
Decision
The tribunal held that the claimants were employees of UAL Short Courses Ltd (not the parent University) during each fixed-term contract, and each contract termination constituted a dismissal. However, none of the lead claimants had sufficient continuous service to claim unfair dismissal or redundancy payments because the gaps between contracts broke continuity under s.210(4) ERA 1996. All unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims were dismissed.
Practical note
Casual tutors on repeated fixed-term contracts may be employees during each engagement, but gaps between contracts will break continuity unless they fall within statutory exceptions, preventing claims requiring qualifying service even after many years of intermittent work.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2206290/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Short course tutor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor