Cases6009325/2024

Claimant v Your Energy Your Way CIC

26 June 2025Before Employment Judge Richard Woodremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing addressed only the question of whether the claimant was employed under a contract of apprenticeship or contract of service. The tribunal found she was employed under a contract of service. The substantive automatic unfair dismissal claim on grounds of making protected disclosures has not yet been determined.

Direct Discrimination(age)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing only addressing employment status. The substantive age discrimination claim has not yet been heard or determined.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing only addressing employment status. The substantive sex discrimination claim has not yet been heard or determined.

Harassment(sex)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing only addressing employment status. The substantive sex-related harassment claim has not yet been heard or determined.

Harassment(age)not determined

This was a preliminary hearing only addressing employment status. The substantive age-related harassment claim has not yet been heard or determined.

Detrimentnot determined

This was a preliminary hearing only addressing employment status. The substantive whistleblowing detriment claim has not yet been heard or determined.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Trainee Renewables Technician from September 2023 to April 2024 at an annual salary of £21,500. She spent most of her time on customer sites carrying out supervised renewable energy installation work, with fortnightly training sessions with third-party providers. The respondent also employed two apprentices under formal ASCLA-compliant apprenticeship contracts which were fixed term, tripartite (involving a college), and led to recognised NVQ qualifications. The claimant's contract was open-ended, allowed termination on notice, and required her to sign an undertaking to repay training costs if she left early.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed under a contract of service (employment), not a contract of apprenticeship. The judge noted that the primary purpose was work on customer projects, not training; the contract was open-ended not fixed term; it allowed dismissal on notice or for performance issues; and it was clearly distinguished by the respondent from the formal apprenticeship contracts it offered to others. The claimant's reliance on recruitment material stating a two-year term was rejected in favour of the express contractual terms.

Practical note

Tribunals will look at the substance of the relationship and the express contractual terms, not recruitment materials or informal remarks, when determining whether a trainee role is an apprenticeship or employment with on-the-job training.

Legal authorities cited

Dunk v George Waller and Son Ltd [1970] 2 QB 163Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Jones and ors [2014] ICR D43Flett v Matheson [2006] ICR 673

Statutes

Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 ss.A5, 35

Case details

Case number
6009325/2024
Decision date
26 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
energy
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Trainee Renewables Technician
Salary band
£20,000–£25,000
Service
7 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No