I am working on a problem question and it concerns redundancy. An employee was made redundant and was refused any notice or a statutory redundancy payment as she had no been employed for two continuous years and thus she was told to leave immediately.
The twist is that she worked for a smaller company since 2007 and this company was taken over - 2012- by the large company that made her redundant, business ran as usual and she continued to work under her existing terms of employment.
Does the fact she continued to work under her existing terms of employment and business continuing as usual mean that she in fact worked for the company since 2007? and therefore she was entitled to be given a notice and a redundancy payment?
Any case law to support this?
Or does it play no part?