Nurse's Employment Status Case: Co-operative's Appeal Partially Upheld
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has partially upheld an appeal regarding a nurse's employment status at Partnership of East London Co-operatives Ltd.
• public
Nurse's Employment Status Case: Co-operative's Appeal Partially Upheld
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has handed down a judgment in the case of Partnership of East London Co-operatives Ltd v Joanne Maclean, partially upholding an appeal by the Partnership of East London Co-operatives Ltd (PELC) regarding the employment status of Ms Joanne Maclean, a qualified nurse.
Background of the Dispute
Ms Maclean worked as a Clinical Streamer at urgent treatment centres (UTCs) run by PELC from August 2018 to March 2023. She subsequently brought claims for unfair constructive dismissal, detrimental treatment due to protected disclosures, and holiday pay. The central issue was whether she was an employee or a worker of PELC, as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998. PELC argued she was a self-employed contractor.
Employment Tribunal Decision
The Employment Tribunal initially found that Ms Maclean was both a worker and an employee of PELC. This decision was based on their assessment of the working relationship and relevant documentation.
Grounds of Appeal
PELC appealed on three primary grounds:
- That the Employment Tribunal erred in concluding that the contract was with Ms Maclean personally and not her limited company, Maclean J Limited.
- That the tribunal's finding of employment status was insufficiently supported by evidence demonstrating mutuality of obligation.
- That the tribunal's conclusion regarding the impracticability of substitution, and therefore the obligation of personal service, was insufficiently supported or explained.
EAT's Ruling
His Honour Judge Auerbach partially upheld the appeal. The EAT dismissed the first ground, affirming that the contract was directly between PELC and Ms Maclean, not her limited company. However, the EAT upheld the second and third grounds, quashing the tribunal’s conclusions that Ms Maclean was a worker and an employee.
The EAT found that the original tribunal's conclusion on 'mutuality of obligation' was not sufficiently supported. The express terms did not guarantee the claimant particular shifts, nor oblige her to accept any shifts offered, which created doubt. The EAT also agreed on the 'personal service' aspect, saying the original tribunal's reasoning on 'impracticability' was inadequate and required further explanation.
Implications of the Judgment
This case highlights the complexities in determining employment status, particularly in the healthcare sector where individuals may work on flexible or ad-hoc arrangements. The EAT's decision reinforces the importance of carefully considering the actual working relationship, the existence of 'mutuality of obligation', and any potential restrictions on the right of substitution when assessing whether an individual is an employee, a worker, or a self-employed contractor.
Further orders regarding the consequences of the outcome will be determined following submissions from both parties.
Read the entire judgement here: Partnership of East London Co-Operatives Ltd v Miss J Maclean [2025] EAT 142
