Claimant v Grant Thornton
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal determined claimant was a worker but not an employee as defined by section 230 ERA 1996. Only employees can bring automatic unfair dismissal claims under section 103A. Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claimant was not an employee and did not have two years' service. No contractual entitlement to redundancy payment established. Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 135 ERA.
Claimant was found to be a worker not an employee. Only employees can bring breach of contract claims in the Employment Tribunal pursuant to Article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim under section 47B ERA for whistleblowing detriment can proceed as worker status is sufficient. Claimant alleges three detriments: early cancellation of assignment, not being offered Birmingham assignment, not being offered Oxford University placement. To be determined at final hearing.
Claim under section 13 ERA for 5 days unpaid wages can proceed as claimant has worker status. Amount in dispute to be clarified and determined at final hearing.
Claim under Working Time Regulations 1998 can proceed as worker status is sufficient. Respondent contends they already paid £234.43 gross for holiday accrued. Claimant was not in position to confirm amount outstanding. To be determined at final hearing.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent Grant Thornton Agile Talent Solutions Limited on a single assignment from 20 November to 1 December 2023 as an Independent Consultant. She was engaged under an Assignment Only Worker Agreement stating she was not an employee. The assignment was terminated early without notice. Claimant brought claims including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, redundancy pay, breach of contract, unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Decision
Tribunal determined claimant was a worker but not an employee under s.230 ERA 1996. Despite significant control during the assignment, the short duration, lack of mutuality of obligation outside assignments, clear contractual terms, and parties' intentions meant employment status was not established. Claims requiring employee status (automatic unfair dismissal, redundancy, breach of contract) were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Whistleblowing detriment, unpaid wages and holiday pay claims allowed to proceed.
Practical note
Even with significant day-to-day control and integration during an assignment, clear contractual documentation stating worker (not employee) status, combined with no mutuality of obligation between assignments and very short duration of work, can prevent worker status escalating to employee status for gig economy/assignment-based arrangements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600542/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Grant Thornton
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Independent Consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No