Case 4108350/2021 · Employment Tribunal
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4108350/2021 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on the th of November 2021 Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Mr D McIntyre v Cornerstone Community Care — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108350/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4108350/2021 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on the th of November 2021 Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Mr D McIntyre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a complaint of unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his contractual relationship with the respondent on 1 March 2021. The preliminary hearing was concerned with jurisdiction: whether the claimant was an employee or a worker at that date, and, if he was an employee, whether he had the required two years' continuous employment.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had previously been employed under a contract of employment from 1 July 2017, but that this contract ended by mutual agreement on 15 November 2020 after the claimant sought reduced hours and greater flexibility. It found that he was then engaged from 22 November 2020 under a zero hours relief worker contract which did not impose mutuality of obligation, and that he accepted that engagement by working under it.
The Tribunal held that, as at 1 March 2021, the claimant was a worker within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore lacked title to present an unfair dismissal complaint. It also held, in the alternative, that a week in which the claimant did not work between 15 and 22 November 2020 broke continuity of employment, so he would not in any event have had the qualifying service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held the claimant was a worker, not an employee, at the relevant date; separately, even if he had been an employee, he lacked the qualifying continuous service required for an unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 210(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- mutuality of obligation
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.