Agency worker's whistleblowing claim fails: tribunal says she was not an employee
A scientist who worked for the UK Health Security Agency via an umbrella company was not an employee, the tribunal ruled, striking out her claim for automatically unfair dismissal over protected disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent via an umbrella company and agency framework.
- Her assignment lasted from 1 November 2021 to 17 November 2021.
- She claimed automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures.
- The tribunal found she was not an employee of the respondent.
- The claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Employment contract with MyPay Limited
Claimant entered into a contract of employment with MyPay Limited, an umbrella company.
-
Assignment agreement
Assignment agreement between Alexander Mann Solutions and MyPay Limited for claimant to work at DHSC/UKHSA.
-
Assignment start
Claimant began working for the respondent as a genomics research lead.
-
Assignment terminated
Respondent ended the claimant's assignment after two and a half weeks.
-
Claims presented
Claimant presented complaints of automatically unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge Burns refused the claimant's application for interim relief.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Klimov directed a preliminary hearing on employee status.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge McKenna heard evidence and submissions on employee status.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found claimant was not an employee and struck out the claim.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant was an 'employee' under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is necessary to bring a claim for automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent.
- The claimant worked through an umbrella company and an agency, with a written contract stating she was an employee of the umbrella company.
- The tribunal found no basis to imply a contract of employment between the claimant and the end user, UK Health Security Agency.
- As a result, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, and it was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers and those employed through umbrella companies are usually not employees of the end user, which limits their ability to claim unfair dismissal.
- To bring an unfair dismissal claim, you must show you are an 'employee' under the Employment Rights Act – worker status is not enough.
- Check your written contracts carefully: if you are employed by an umbrella company, your employer is that company, not the organisation you work for day-to-day.
- If you are an agency worker and believe you have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, you may still have a claim for detriment (which requires only worker status) – but not for dismissal.
This case shows how the legal structure of agency work can block whistleblowing claims. The claimant, a scientist, was assigned to the UK Health Security Agency through an umbrella company and an agency. After just two and a half weeks, her assignment was ended. She believed this was because she had made protected disclosures and claimed automatically unfair dismissal.
However, the tribunal found that her contract of employment was with the umbrella company, MyPay Limited, not with the UK Health Security Agency. The agency framework meant there was no direct employment relationship with the end user. The tribunal applied the standard test for employee status – personal service, mutuality of obligation, and control – and concluded that no implied contract existed between the claimant and the respondent.
What the respondent did right
UK Health Security Agency was able to show that the claimant was engaged through a formal agency arrangement with clear written contracts. The tribunal accepted that the claimant remained an employee of the umbrella company throughout, and that the respondent was simply the end user. This meant the claim could not proceed.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment status is a gatekeeper issue for unfair dismissal rights. Agency workers and those paid through umbrella companies should be aware that their employer for legal purposes is usually the agency or umbrella company, not the organisation where they actually work. If you want to bring a whistleblowing claim, you may have better prospects by bringing a detriment claim (which requires only worker status) rather than an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant here did not bring a detriment claim, and the tribunal noted that no application to amend had been made.
Similar cases
Track and trace worker's interim relief bid fails over employment status and non-attendance
An employment tribunal dismissed a track and trace call centre operative's claim for interim relief after finding she had no good chance of proving she was an employee or made protected disclosures. The case was later struck out when she failed to attend the final hearing.
Agency worker's whistleblowing and harassment claims dismissed after short assignment
A housing officer who worked for Central Bedfordshire Council for just one month via an agency had her claims of whistleblowing detriment and harassment related to disability and transgender status dismissed by the Watford Employment Tribunal.
Unfair dismissal remedy includes £4,000 for loss of company car despite new job
A former employee with two years' service won £2,575.34 in unfair dismissal compensation after losing his company car, even though he found a higher-paying job. The tribunal awarded £4,000 for the car benefit, reduced by 75% for contributory fault.
Software developer's Slack message not a protected disclosure: whistleblowing claim fails
A software developer who raised concerns about multi-user discrimination in a Slack channel has lost his whistleblowing claim after the tribunal found his message did not amount to a protected disclosure of information.