Case 2500253/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wooler v The Parochial Church Council of the Parish Church of St James and St Basil — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500253/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wooler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against the Parochial Church Council of the Parish Church of St James and St Basil. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not accrued the qualifying two years' continuous employment needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claimant started work under the employment contract on 1 December 2019 and that the effective date of termination was 28 November 2021, giving him less than two years' service.
In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal distinguished between the earlier organ-playing arrangements and the later written contract sent in October 2019. It found that, before the written contract took effect, the claimant worked under a series of discrete engagements: he could choose whether to accept requests to play, the respondent was not obliged to offer him work, and the claimant was not under an ongoing obligation to accept it. On that basis, the pre-December 2019 arrangements were not contracts of service. The Tribunal also found that the additional work the claimant later took on, including choir-related work and organ maintenance issues, was done voluntarily and did not create contractual obligations before the written contract.
The Tribunal accepted that the parties entered into a contract of employment in late October 2019, subject to references and a DBS check, and that they agreed the claimant would start work under that contract on 1 December 2019. It rejected the claimant's case that his continuous employment began earlier, including by reference to work done in November 2019, because that work was done under the earlier non-employment arrangements and not under the later contract of employment. It also rejected the argument that the notice period was extended to 30 November 2021, finding that the reference to that date in the later letter was an error and that the effective date of termination remained 28 November 2021.
Applying sections 94, 97, 108, 210 to 212 and 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant was continuously employed from 1 December 2019 to 28 November 2021, which was less than two years. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and therefore did not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed under s.94 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.210 ERA 1996
- s.211 ERA 1996
- s.212 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
- Hall (H M Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Atholl House Productions Ltd
- Windle v Secretary of State for Justice
- Mowlem Northern Ltd v Watson
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.