Claimant v Abstract Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee. Consequently, she did not have the legal status required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claim did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success and was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a).
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee. Consequently, she did not have the legal status required to bring an automatic unfair dismissal claim. The claim did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success and was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a).
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee, and as such did not have contractual notice rights. The wrongful dismissal claim did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success and was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a).
The pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was unaffected by the preliminary hearing decision on employment status and will proceed to a four-day final hearing listed for 14-17 July 2025 to determine liability. The tribunal made no findings on the merits at this stage.
Facts
The claimant worked as an onsite recruitment coordinator for a recruitment agency from October 2021 to January 2024, during which time she took maternity leave from January 2023. Upon ending her maternity leave in January 2024, she was informed that her branch in Wolverhampton had closed and was offered a temporary position in Derby, which she declined due to childcare and distance. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. The respondent contended she was an agency worker under a contract for services, not an employee, and therefore lacked the requisite employment status for dismissal claims.
Decision
The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's employment status. Despite the claimant's arguments about the reality of the working relationship, the tribunal concluded she was a worker under s230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee. Consequently, her claims for unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. However, her pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was unaffected and will proceed to a full hearing in July 2025.
Practical note
Even where a claimant performs consistent hours under direction and control, tribunals will scrutinise the entire factual matrix including variable hours, timesheets, and absence of holiday pay to determine worker rather than employee status, with significant consequences for dismissal rights.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1303382/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Onsite recruitment coordinator
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep