Claimant v Florence Staffing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. There was no mutuality of obligation and insufficient control. The claimant registered for assignments via an app, was not obliged to accept any assignments, and the respondent was not obliged to provide work. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Facts
The claimant was a registered nurse who worked through the respondent's app-based platform from April 2020 to March 2024. She would express interest in assignments via the app, which were then accepted or rejected by end user clients. She was paid only for assignments worked, had no guaranteed hours, could work for others, and was not obliged to accept assignments. The respondent terminated her access to the platform in March 2024 following medication-related incidents.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA 1996. There was no mutuality of obligation as the respondent was not obliged to provide work and the claimant was not obliged to accept it. There was insufficient control by the respondent over how the claimant performed her work. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
App-based gig economy platforms can successfully establish self-employed status where there is genuine lack of mutuality of obligation and control, even where the worker is paid holiday pay and tax/NI is deducted.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201117/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Registered nurse
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union