It is not unusual for an employee to have some confusion as to the name of their employer. For example: an employee working for an owner-director of a limited company may assume that the owner-director is their employer when it is actually the limited company; or an employee working within a GP Practice or trading name, may assume that the practice name or trading name is their employer when it is actually the GP Partners who own the practice or the sole trader using the trading name. To avoid confusion, you must make sure that the name of the employer is clearly stated in the employee’s contract of employment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has been called on to determine whether a claim can be accepted in the Employment Tribunals if the name of the employer is wrong. The answer appears to rely on whether or not the difference between the correct and incorrect names can be described as minor.

In 2015 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the difference between the name given on an EC certificate issued by ACAS (the Royal Derby Hospital) and the name of the employer (Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust) was minor and the claim could be accepted.

In the recent case of Savage v JC 1991 LLP (et al) the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the difference between a trading name (John Campbell Messengers at Arms and Sheriff Officers) and a named individual who would be the employer (John Campbell) was minor and the claim could be accepted.

However, in another recent case of Giny v SNA Transport Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the difference between an owner-director’s name (Mr Ahmed) and a limited company’s name (SNA Transport Ltd) was not minor and the claim could not be accepted.

Mr Giny worked for Mr Ahmed who was the sole owner-director of SNA Transport Ltd. Mr Giny’s employer was SNA Transport Ltd. Mr Giny resigned and commenced Early Claim conciliation with ACAS. He told ACAS that his employer was Mr Ahmed and, when Early Claim conciliation failed, he was given an EC Certificate for his claim against Mr Ahmed.

He then proceeded to the Employment Tribunals and submitted a claim for constructive unfair dismissal against SNA Transport Ltd. His claim was rejected because his EC certificate was valid for a claim against Mr Ahmed and not SNA Transport Ltd. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the difference between the names of a natural person (Mr Ahmed) and a legal person (SNA Transport Ltd) could never, as a matter of law, be minor. Although they had some sympathy for Mr Giny’s position (he had never had a contract of employment that named his employer and he had not had legal representation) they were not able to accept his claim.

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.