Claimant v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without employee status, the claimant cannot bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA 1996.
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 101A ERA 1996 (health and safety detriment) failed. The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore could not succeed in this claim.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing) was unsuccessful. The tribunal determined the claimant lacked employee status, which is a prerequisite for this claim.
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996 (assertion of statutory right) failed. The claimant's lack of employee status under section 230 ERA 1996 meant this claim could not succeed.
The wrongful dismissal claim was unsuccessful and dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee, which was fatal to this contractual claim for breach of the employment contract.
Facts
Mr Kashem brought multiple claims against Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust including unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal on various grounds (health and safety, whistleblowing, assertion of statutory right), and wrongful dismissal. The case was heard over three days by video hearing with the claimant representing himself and the respondent represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As a result, all dismissal-related claims failed because employee status is a prerequisite for such claims. The judgment notes that remaining claims will continue, suggesting there may be other claims that do not require employee status.
Practical note
Employment status is a threshold issue that must be established before unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims can succeed; workers who are not employees cannot bring these claims regardless of the merits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2411554/2023
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No