Multiple Identities

The law requires prospective claimants to ensure that the employer’s name on the Early Conciliation (EC) Certificate is the same as on the ET1 claim form, but what happens when the employer has multiple names? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held in Savage v JC 1991 LLP t/a John Campbell, Messengers at Arms and Sheriff Officers and ors that the claim could proceed, although there were only two certificates for three employers, as two of them applied to the same entity. 

Basic facts 

Ms Savage, who had worked for John Campbell, a Sheriff Officer and Messenger At Arms, from 30 March 1998, was dismissed in about May 2016 for alleged gross misconduct.   

During the course of her employment, the name of her employer changed several times, without her knowledge. For instance, between about 2003 and 2015 her employer seems to have been “John Campbell Sheriff Officers LLP”, but by the time of her dismissal she was employed by JC 1991 LLP. However, a letter from John Campbell, Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers dated 1 December 2014 stated that “John Campbell is a trading name of John Campbell Sheriff Officers LLP”.  This was a new entity distinct from the one that employed her between 10 December 2012 and 30 March 2015.  

When she brought an unfair dismissal claim, she provided three names for her former employer (the respondent) on the ET1: (1) JC 1991 LLP trading as John Campbell Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers, (2) JC 1991 LLP; and (3) John Campbell, all with the same business address. However, she only lodged two Acas certificates naming “John Campbell Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers” and “JC 1991 LLP”.  In other words, the EC certificates only named (1) & (2) and John Campbell was not named separately or as an individual. 

Tribunal decision 

The tribunal rejected the claim against the last name on the ET1, John Campbell, on the basis that she had not obtained an EC Certificate in relation to that respondent.  She appealed, arguing that a third one was not required, as the first certificate also covered John Campbell as an individual. 

EAT decision

Noting the uncertainty as to her former employer’s name (caused in large part by her former employer), the EAT said that Ms Savage had tried to address that uncertainty by naming three respondents. 

As the names – “John Campbell Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers” and “JC 1991 LLP” – had both been identified as prospective respondents, she was entitled to name them.  However, she then wrongly separated the first and second respondents in the ET1. The issue, therefore, was whether the tribunal made a mistake when it treated the two certificates as if they applied to the first and second respondents (who were the same entity) as opposed to the first and third respondents. 

Allowing the appeal, the EAT held that it was obvious that Ms Savage intended to identify John Campbell as an individual with a trading name as the respondent, when applying for the second certificate, not least because she had asked the tribunal to deal with them both together.  

In any event, the EAT pointed out that the Schedule to the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 paragraph 2 only states that the early conciliation form must contain the prospective respondent’s name and address, which she had done separately on the two forms submitted to Acas. 

Instructing Ms Savage to delete the second respondent from the proceedings, the EAT remitted her substantive claim back to the tribunal.