Claimant v Stow Outdoors Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant was not an employee during the relevant period (September 2021 - July 2022) due to insufficient mutuality of obligation, gaps in employment exceeding one week, and payment arrangements indicative of self-employment. Without establishing continuous employment from at least December 2021, claimant lacked the required two years' service for unfair dismissal. Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under sections 94 and 108 ERA 1996.
Breach of contract claim for alleged lack of notice was contingent upon claimant establishing employee status. As employee status was not established, this claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked sporadic, casual shifts for the respondent's outdoor clothing retail shop between September 2021 and July 2022, working only 18 shifts in total during that period. He was paid by invoice to his consultancy business, charging VAT initially, and was responsible for his own tax and national insurance. WhatsApp messages showed the respondent making ad-hoc offers of work with no expectation the claimant would accept ('if not, no probs'). The claimant alleged continuous employment from September 2021 and sought to claim unfair dismissal following termination in December 2023.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee during September 2021 to July 2022 due to insufficient mutuality of obligation characteristic of casual worker arrangements, payment arrangements consistent with self-employment, and gaps in work exceeding one week that did not fall within statutory continuity exceptions. Without establishing continuous employment from at least December 2021, the claimant lacked the required two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
Casual, ad-hoc working arrangements with no obligation to offer or accept work, combined with self-employed payment structures and irregular gaps, will not establish employee status or continuous employment for unfair dismissal purposes.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401032/2024
- Decision date
- 13 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Shop staff (outdoor clothing retail)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No