Cases2301668/2022

Claimant v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

16 May 2025Before Employment Judge HarleyLondon Southin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

Claim failed for want of jurisdiction. Tribunal found claimant was not an employee but a worker engaged via the Trust's StaffBank on a temporary basis. Without employee status, claimant had no standing to bring unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

Claim failed for want of jurisdiction as claimant was not an employee. Additionally, tribunal found that alleged protected disclosures were not in fact protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996 – they did not contain information tending to show a risk to health and safety.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Claimant failed to establish entitlement to higher rate of pay. As a StaffBank worker she was paid at the agreed Band rate with no incremental progression. No evidence substantiated difference claimed. Claim also out of time with no reason offered for delay.

Otherwithdrawn

Claim for Agency Workers Rights was withdrawn by claimant at outset of hearing and dismissed on withdrawal by tribunal.

Facts

Claimant worked for NHS Trust initially as permanent Band 4 Medical Secretary from Sept 2017, resigned March 2018, then worked three separate temporary assignments via Trust's internal StaffBank from July 2018 to Nov 2021. Final assignment at Sunshine House ran from Jan 2019 to Nov 2021 with flexible hours varying 0-5 shifts per week. Claimant raised concerns about delayed report sign-offs. Assignment ended Oct 2021, last working day 4 Nov 2021. Claimant argued she was employee under verbal contract formed via email exchanges; Trust argued she was StaffBank worker.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant was not an employee but a worker engaged via StaffBank on temporary assignments. No freestanding employment contract formed via email exchanges – language used ('random cover', 'short term assignments', 'odd days') indicated casual bank work not permanent employment. Reality of relationship showed no mutuality of obligation, no requirement for either party to offer/accept work beyond individual shifts, flexible working patterns inconsistent with employment. All claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to establish entitlement.

Practical note

Informal email exchanges using casual language ('cover', 'odd days', 'random assignments') will not create an employment contract where the reality shows temporary bank working arrangements with no mutuality of obligation, even where the working relationship continues for an extended period.

Legal authorities cited

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Scancarriers A/S v Aotearoa International Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 419MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 127 (QB)Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd [2012] IRLR 99PGMO Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2021] EWCA Civ 1370Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.230ERA 1996 s.210(4)

Case details

Case number
2301668/2022
Decision date
16 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Band 4 Medical Secretary / Admin Medical Secretary

Claimant representation

Represented
No