Cases1302699/2024

Claimant v Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust

15 June 2025Before Employment Judge MurdinMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal determined that the claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee, because she could pick and choose shifts, had no guarantee of work, and there was no mutuality of obligation. Without employee status, she had no right to claim unfair dismissal, so the claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospects of success.

Facts

Dr Bains worked as a locum Oral and Maxillofacial Senior House Officer from September 2019 under a 'Medical Bank' arrangement after completing her training. She claimed constructive unfair dismissal on 9 February 2024. She had signed a Medical Bank contract in December 2019 stating there was no guarantee of work and no obligation to accept shifts. She argued she was an employee, relying on references to 'employment' in documentation, pension records, and payslips. The respondent argued she was a bank worker with no mutuality of obligation.

Decision

The tribunal held that Dr Bains was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee, because she could choose which shifts to work with no guarantee of work and no mutuality of obligation. She was not entitled to annual leave or sick pay and could arrange her own cover. The misleading references to 'employment' in documents did not reflect the reality of the relationship. Without employee status, she had no right to claim unfair dismissal, and the claim was struck out.

Practical note

Even where documentation contains language suggesting employment, tribunals will look to the reality of the relationship: the ability to pick and choose shifts with no mutuality of obligation indicates worker, not employee, status.

Legal authorities cited

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Carmichael v National Power Ltd [2000] IRLR 43

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.230(3)(b)ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
1302699/2024
Decision date
15 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Oral and Maxillofacial Senior House Officer
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No