Claimant v Providing Care Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was found to be a worker, not an employee, of the first respondent. As automatic unfair dismissal under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employee status, this claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The claim of detriment by reason of having made protected disclosures under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was found to be capable of proceeding against the first respondent only, as the claimant had worker status. The merits of this claim will be determined at a final hearing listed for May 2026.
Facts
The claimant worked as an Outreach Support Worker for vulnerable young people from November 2023 to May 2024 under a zero-hours contract with the first respondent, which supplied workers to the second respondent. She was dismissed following a LADO investigation. She claimed she was an employee of the second respondent despite contractual documentation showing a worker relationship with the first respondent. The tribunal heard evidence about her working arrangements including shift allocation, personal service requirements, and the level of control exercised over her work.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996 engaged by the first respondent, not an employee of either respondent. The key missing element for employee status was mutuality of obligation—she could refuse weekly shifts without penalty and the respondent had no obligation to offer work. Her automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The second respondent was dismissed from proceedings. Her whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B continues against the first respondent only.
Practical note
Zero-hours workers in the care sector providing support to vulnerable individuals may have high levels of control and personal service obligations, but without mutuality of obligation to provide and accept work, they remain workers not employees, limiting their remedies to worker-level protections like whistleblowing detriment claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6012163/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Outreach Support Worker
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister