Claimant v E
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, not an employee, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. The tribunal instead considered the alternative whistleblowing detriment claim.
The claimant made a protected disclosure to Derby City Council about safeguarding concerns regarding a 17-year-old employee. She reasonably believed this was in the public interest and that it tended to show a breach of legal safeguarding obligations or danger to health and safety. The tribunal found that the respondent's decision to terminate her work was materially influenced by this disclosure, made the very day after she reported the matter.
Facts
The claimant worked as a climbing instructor at an indoor climbing centre from November 2021 to May 2024. She was engaged as self-employed but worked regular hours averaging 26 per week. In March 2024, a 17-year-old vulnerable employee (Ms Y) disclosed that the respondent's director (Mr D) had attempted to kiss her and she felt uncomfortable. After investigating and becoming concerned about potential grooming and safeguarding risks to other children using the centre, the claimant reported the matter to Derby City Council on 8 May 2024. The next day, Mr D terminated the working relationship by text, stating they could not work together whilst the matter was ongoing.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, not self-employed, based on the reality of the working relationship including personal service, use of respondent's equipment and insurance, and lack of client/customer relationship. The tribunal found she made a protected disclosure with reasonable belief in a safeguarding breach/health and safety danger, made in the public interest. The respondent terminated her work the day after the disclosure, and the tribunal rejected shifting explanations, finding the disclosure materially influenced the decision. The claim succeeded and the claimant was awarded £5,232.25 for 21 weeks' loss of earnings.
Practical note
A worker engaged as 'self-employed' but working regular hours with personal service obligations may still qualify for whistleblowing protection, and termination immediately following a safeguarding disclosure will likely be found to be causally linked unless the employer can prove otherwise with contemporaneous evidence.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010908/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- E
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Freelance Climbing Wall Instructor
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No