Cases2403221/2024

Claimant v Lancashire County Council

2 July 2025Before Employment Judge SlaterManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

The tribunal determined the claimant was an employee during individual assignments from 1 May 2023 onwards, but not between assignments. The issue of continuity of employment necessary for unfair dismissal was not decided at this preliminary hearing and remains to be determined.

Breach of Contractnot determined

The tribunal found the claimant was employed under a series of individual employment contracts during assignments from 1 May 2023, thus establishing employee status for breach of contract purposes. The substantive merits of the claim remain to be determined.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

The respondent accepted the claimant was a worker and employee within the Equality Act 2010 sense. This preliminary hearing addressed only employment status for ERA purposes, not the merits of the discrimination claim.

Facts

The claimant worked for the respondent from 2011, initially as a casual worker, then in guaranteed hours roles from July 2014 to April 2016 and April 2016 to May 2023. In March 2023, she resigned from her 37-hour permanent contract to work as a casual worker only. She worked casually from May 2023 until December 2023, when she went on sick leave. In January 2024, she was informed her casual post had been terminated. The claimant claimed she was an employee throughout, while the respondent argued she was only a worker when working casually.

Decision

The tribunal held there was no over-arching contract of employment from May 2023 to January 2024 due to lack of mutuality of obligation between assignments. However, during each individual assignment when the claimant actually worked, she was employed under a contract of employment. The tribunal applied the tests from Stephenson and Drake, finding mutuality of obligation and sufficient control during actual work periods, with other contractual provisions not inconsistent with employee status.

Practical note

Casual workers with no obligation to accept work and no guaranteed hours may still be employees during individual assignments when they actually work, even if there is no over-arching contract of employment between those assignments.

Legal authorities cited

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497Young & Woods Ltd v West [1980] IRLR 201Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority [1998] IRLR 125Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] ICR 1226Drake v IPSOS Mori UK Ltd [2012] IRLR 973Stephenson v Delphi Diesel Systems [2003] ICR 471Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41

Statutes

Equality Act 2010Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230(1)

Case details

Case number
2403221/2024
Decision date
2 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Lancashire County Council
Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Casual Community Support Worker / Care Assistant
Service
12 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep