Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

The latest updates in employment, benefits, pensions and immigration

open menu close menu

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

  • Home
  • Events
    • Past events
  • Who We Are
    • Meet the team
  • How we can help

EAT confirms “unofficial” work prior to formal start date may not count towards a period of continuous employment

By UK People Reward and Mobility Team
May 28, 2020
  • Employment contracts
  • Unfair dismissal
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

It is well known that employees have the right under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) not to be unfairly dismissed, provided they have been continuously employed for a period of at least two years by the date of dismissal.

Normally, pinpointing an employee’s start date is fairly straightforward. Section 211(1)(a) of the ERA provides that the period of continuous employment begins “with the day on which the employee starts work”. This will typically be the start date of work under the individual’s contract of employment.

However, in the recent case of R O’Sullivan v. DSM Demolition Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether unofficial work carried out prior to a formal start date should be counted towards the period of continuous employment. This was a crucial step as the contested start date determined whether the ex-employee had two years’ service and so could bring a claim for unfair dismissal.

Mr O’Sullivan entered into an employment contract with DSM Demolition under which he began work on 2 November 2015. However he had done some work on DSM’s site in the week of 26 October 2015. Mr O’Sullivan claimed his employment began on this earlier date even though he was not put on DSM’s payroll until 2 November 2015. It appears he was paid cash in hand by one of the workers on site for the earlier work and DSM’s client was not charged.

In their judgment, the EAT held that the tribunal at first instance was entitled to conclude that Mr O’Sullivan had worked in the week of 26 October 2015 under an “unofficial” arrangement, and not under a contract of employment. The fact that Mr O’Sullivan was in effect a subcontractor for the week of 26 October 2015 was an important factor. On that basis the EAT concluded that the tribunal had not made an error in deciding he did not have the required service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. While the start date in the employment contract was an important consideration for the EAT as an indication of the parties’ intentions,

The case lends some guidance to the statutory test under the ERA, however it is important to recognise that each case will always hinge on its own facts.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
UK People Reward and Mobility Team

About UK People Reward and Mobility Team

Our People, Reward and Mobility team in the UK advises on all aspects of employment law, both contentious and non-contentious, and covers the full range of pensions and employee benefits issues as well as all areas of immigration law.

All posts

You might also like...

  • General
  • Redundancy and business reorganisation
  • Unfair dismissal

Can unguaranteed work constitute alternative employment in redundancy situations?

By Helena Rozman
  • Discrimination
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Termination
  • Tribunal procedures
  • Unfair dismissal
  • Working Time

Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

In the recent case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor the Supreme Court agreed with the EAT and the Court of Appeal and unanimously held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) cannot protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK.

By Helena Rozman
  • COVID-19
  • Job Retention Scheme
  • Redundancy and business reorganisation
  • Termination
  • Tribunal claims
  • Unfair dismissal

When is it reasonable to dismiss rather than to furlough?

By Laura Morrison

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site