Case 2600297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Marples v BWA Health & Care Services Limited At an Open Preliminary Hearing by CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600297/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Marples
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether Miss K Marples was an "employee" within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She had worked for BWA Health & Care Services Limited as a Support Worker from 9 November 2012 to 14 November 2019 on a zero-hours contract. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from the respondent's managing director, Miss Yvonne Woodhouse, and preferred the claimant's evidence on the practical consequences when she cancelled or declined rota shifts.
The written agreement dated 18 September 2015 described the relationship as one of self-employment and said that no contract of employment existed between assignments. The tribunal held that the reality of the working arrangements was different. It found that there was a contract, that the respondent exercised sufficient control, and that the claimant was required to perform the work personally. On mutuality of obligations, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was expected to work the hours allocated on the rota, that she faced repercussions if she did not, and that the respondent normally provided work with regularity. It therefore found an "umbrella" contract covering gaps between assignments.
The tribunal also noted other status factors pointing towards employment: the claimant did not provide her own equipment, took no financial risk, did not hire helpers, was subject to discipline and organisational rules, received payslips, and had national insurance and pension deductions made. It concluded that the majority of the factors pointed to employee status. Accordingly, it held that the claimant was entitled to bring a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal as an employee, but it left open for a future hearing whether such a complaint had been pleaded or required amendment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996 and said she was entitled to bring a constructive unfair dismissal complaint as an employee, but it did not decide whether that complaint had been pleaded or required amendment, and it did not determine the merits of any substantive claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- Autoclenz v Belcher & others [2011] IRLR 820
- O'Kelly & others v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 728 CA
- Pulse Healthcare Limited v Carewatch Services Limited and others
- St Ives Plymouth Ltd v Haggerty
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.