Read on Twitter
1/ Having tweeted last night about a Duncan Ferguson case which I& #39;d assumed to be about a red card appeal, the EAT has this morning put up its judgment in R O& #39;Sullivan v DSM Demolition - clearly a case about Ronnie & a contractual dispute over a prize for another 147 #ukemplaw
2/ Alas that was not so. This is a case about continuity of service in circumstances where the employee does some stuff for the employer before the contract officially starts. O had done his H&S registration, uniform fitting & performed some work before the contractual start date
3/ That work hadn& #39;t been paid for by the employer, but out of the pocket of one of the employer& #39;s workers, with no work sheets for pay from DMS filled in. The ET found the contract for that work was under a collateral contract & didn& #39;t count for continuity purposes.
4/ That conclusion was upheld by the EAT. The statutory test is that set out at s.211(1)(b) - that time begins "with the day on which the employee starts work". The question was whether what O did before the contracted start date started that clock.
5/ The EAT held that it didn& #39;t. Heavy reliance was placed on the following paras of Koenig v Mind Gym in support of a finding of a collateral contract for the earlier work. The Judge was entitled to note the strange payment arrangements in reaching that conclusion.
6/ One other argument that the EAT dispatched swiftly was reliance by O on the presumption under s.210(5). The EAT held that to be concerned solely with interim periods between a start & finish date & not whether a period at the start or end should be counted.
7/ For those who& #39;ve got to the end of this thread, here& #39;s your reward - a link to the case: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ec29947e90e071e2e067ff2/Mr_R_O_Sullivan_v_DSM_Demolition_Ltd_UKEAT_0257_VP.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ec... #ukemplaw
