Mr D Smith v Rendall and Rittner Ltd: 6001001/2024
JUDGMENT
Following the hearing of oral evidence from the claimant and legal submissions from the parties, the decision of the tribunal is that:(1) The correct respondent to the proceedings is Rendall and Rittner Limited.(2) The claimant was not an employee of the respondent, due to a lack of mutuality of obligation. The claimant accepted during evidence that is the case. Although the terms of the contract of employment between him and Noonan, who employed the claimant prior to a transfer to the current respondent on 10 February 2020, suggest otherwise, those terms do not reflect the reality of the situation.(3) Even if the claimant was an employee when he carried out assignments for the respondent, he only worked approximately six hours during his last year of employment, the equivalent of three two-hour shifts; and there is no overarching contract bridging the gaps between employment. The claimant does not have therefore have sufficient continuity of service (i.e. two years) to bring an unfair dismissal claim.(4) The unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims are therefore dismissed, because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it.