Staffline Recruitment Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant made a claim for statutory redundancy payment, but the tribunal found that she was not an employee of the respondent as she was supplied by the respondent to work for Williams Lea and was under the supervision and control of Williams Lea at all times.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent, but rather was supplied by the respondent to work for a third party (Williams Lea) under that party's supervision and control, and therefore had no employment status with the respondent to support a claim for statutory redundancy.

• •The claimant was not an employee of the respondent

Case Nos: 1800727/2021 (V) 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Between: Miss M Danesi and Staffline Recruitment Limited Claimant Respondent Heard at: Leeds on: 8 April 2021 Before: Employment Judge Cox Representation: Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented Respondent: Mr Symons, solicitor REASONS 1. The Respondent is a staffing agency that places operatives mainly in the logistics and food industries. The Claimant presented a claim for a statutory redundancy payment. To qualify for such a payment, she needed to be an employee of the Respondent. The Respondent denied that she was its employee. 2. The Claimant did not attend the Hearing of the claim but the Tribunal considered the content of her claim form and various documents she submitted in advance of the Hearing, including a document entitled “Precedents Additional Information”. This document set out arguments on why she was the Respondent’s employee, which appeared to have been written by someone giving the Claimant advice. 3. On behalf of the Respondent, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from Mr Piotr Hauslinger, an Account Manager. It also considered a small number of documents to which he referred in the file prepared for the Hearing. 4. The Tribunal made the following findings on the basis of those documents and evidence. Case Nos: 1800727/2021 (V) 2 5. Throughout the Claimant’s employment with the Respondent, which lasted around four years, she was assigned to work at the premises of Williams Lea at Normanton. Williams Lea contracted with DHL for the supply of agency workers. DHL in turn contracted with the Respondent for the supply of agency workers, and the Claimant was supplied under that contract. The work involved in the Claimant’s assignment at Williams Lea related to the proce…