Mutual obligations

Case 5: The facts

Mr Bunce worked at Carillion through the agency Skyblue. When he was told there was no longer any work for him, he brought a claim of unfair dismissal, which he could only pursue if he could show that he was an employee (i.e. was employed under a contract of service).

The ruling

The EAT held that Bunce was not an employee of Skyblue; there was no mutuality of obligation, and it is well established that this is the minimum requirement that needs to exist for there to be a contract of service. The EAT did not consider whether Bunce was an employee of Carillion, as he had not claimed this as part of his appeal.

Bunce v (1) Postworth t/a Skyblue; (2) Great Railway Maintenance t/a Carillion UKEAT/0052/04