Cases→1308912/2023

Claimant v A. J. Lloyd Funeral Directors Limited

18 November 2024Before Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal found that whilst the claimant was an employee during individual assignments, there was no overarching employment contract covering the periods between assignments. The arrangement lacked mutuality of obligation between assignments. The claimant could not establish two years' continuous service as required by s.108 ERA because the gaps between assignments could not be bridged under s.212. Therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.

Facts

The claimant worked as a casual funeral bearer from December 2021 to December 2023 on a zero-hours basis. He was offered individual assignments which he could accept or decline, and was paid only for work done. A letter issued in May 2023 stated the arrangement was not an employment contract and there was no obligation on either party to offer or accept work. The respondent terminated the arrangement in November 2023 with 30 days' notice, though no work was performed during this notice period. There were numerous gaps exceeding one week between assignments.

Decision

The tribunal held that while the claimant was an employee during individual assignments, there was no overarching employment contract covering periods between assignments. The arrangement lacked the necessary mutuality of obligation between assignments to constitute continuous employment. The claimant could not establish two years' continuous service as required to claim unfair dismissal, so the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Practical note

Zero-hours casual workers who work successive assignments may be employees during those assignments, but without an overarching contract with mutuality of obligation covering gaps between assignments, they cannot accumulate continuous service for unfair dismissal claims, even if the overall relationship spans more than two years.

Legal authorities cited

McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Fitzgerald v Hall Russell & Co Ltd [1970] AC 984General of the Salvation Army v Dewsbury [1984] ICR 498Little v BMI Chiltern Hospital EAT 0021/09Cornwall County Council v Prater [2006] IRLR 362Drake v Ipsos Mori UK LtdCotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams [2006] IRLR 181Carmichael v National Power [1999] 1 WLR 2042St Ives Plymouth Ltd v Mrs D Haggerty UKEAT/0107/08

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.210(5)ERA 1996 s.235(1)ERA 1996 s.97(1)(a)ERA 1996 s.212ERA 1996 s.211(1)ERA 1996 s.108ERA 1996 s.230(1)

Case details

Case number
1308912/2023
Decision date
18 November 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
A. J. Lloyd Funeral Directors Limited
Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Funeral Attendant/Casual Funeral Bearer
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →