Claimant v Resource Experience Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined at a preliminary hearing that the claimant was a worker, not an employee. As unfair dismissal claims require employee status, the claim failed because the claimant lacked the necessary employment status to bring the claim. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation, insufficient control, and the contract provisions were inconsistent with a contract of employment.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Tactical Field Marketing Services Operative from March 2021 under a contract labelled as 'worker'. Work was offered through an online portal which the claimant could accept or decline at will. She worked variable patterns, sometimes four out of seven days, sometimes not at all for periods. The respondent had no obligation to offer work and the claimant had no obligation to accept it. She received pay for hours worked and holiday pay, but no sick pay or employee benefits.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, not an employee. Although personal service was required, there was insufficient control and crucially, no mutuality of obligation. The claimant was not obliged to accept work and the respondent was not obliged to provide it. The contract provisions were inconsistent with employment status, including no sick pay, no employee communications, and no formal disciplinary procedures.
Practical note
Even where personal service is required, lack of mutuality of obligation (no commitment to provide or accept work) is fatal to employee status, particularly in casual, portal-based work arrangements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303444/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Tactical Field Marketing Services Operative
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No