Case 3200607/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Maclean v Partnership East London Co-operatives — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200607/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Maclean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the Claimant was an employee or worker. The Claimant had brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and holiday pay, and the Respondent argued that she had worked as a self-employed contractor through her personal service company.
The tribunal found that there was a contract between the Claimant and the Respondent, and that the written documentation did not accurately reflect the reality of the relationship. Factors pointing away from employment included invoicing through the company, payment outside PAYE and references to self-employment, but the tribunal found that substitution was impracticable and that the dominant purpose of the contract was personal work by the Claimant.
The tribunal held that the Claimant was a worker under section 230 ERA 1996 each time she accepted work, and was also an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996. The merits of the pleaded claims and any remedy were not determined; the case was listed to proceed to a final hearing in September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary hearing judgment determining employment status only. The tribunal found the Claimant was an employee for the purposes of the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, but did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment is a preliminary hearing judgment determining employment and worker status only. It records claims of whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, but did not determine the merits of those claims. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment is a preliminary hearing judgment determining employment and worker status only. The tribunal found the Claimant was a worker under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and an employee, but did not determine the holiday pay claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43K Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Catholic Child Welfare Society and ors
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.