Case 4103760/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Rabbitte v Represented by:25 Mr C Maclean, Solicitor The Clyde FC Community Foundation — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103760/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Rabbitte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 30 November and 1-2 December 2022, the tribunal considered whether Miss L Rabbitte had employee, worker or Equality Act employment status in relation to the Clyde Football Club / Clyde FC Community Foundation arrangement. It found that she was engaged by the second respondent, the Foundation, and that she was engaged at all times as a volunteer.
The tribunal preferred Mr Caldwell's evidence to the claimant's. It found that the parties discussed a possible role in women and girls' football and an application for external funding, but no written contract was issued, no salary was paid, the claimant remained in full-time paid employment with Effective Consumable Solutions, and there was no instruction, supervision or control over her activities. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the Club was the contracting party or that the Foundation was being used improperly to obtain funding.
Applying the statutory definitions in s.230 ERA and s.83 EqA, together with Ready Mixed Concrete and X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau, the tribunal held that no contract of employment or other contract for personal work or services was formed. As a result, it found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker and was not in employment for Equality Act purposes, so all of the claims before it were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Included in the case listing/context; the tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction because it found no contract and no employment or worker status. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure category from the case listing/context; dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis. The judgment does not separately analyse the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment expressly discussed sex discrimination and held the claimant was not in employment under s.83 EqA, so the claim could not proceed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment expressly discussed unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA and dismissed it because the claimant was found to be a volunteer, not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker and had no entitlement to wages from either respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Included in the case listing/context; dismissed with the other claims because the claimant lacked worker status. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230(1) ERA employee definition
- s.230(3) ERA worker definition
- s.83(2) EqA employment definition
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v The Minister of Pensions & National Insurance
- X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau & another
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.