Agency forklift driver loses unfair dismissal claim: employment status is key
A tribunal has ruled that an agency forklift truck driver was not an employee of Extraman Limited, meaning he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. The victimisation claim also failed.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #forklift-truck-driver
- #victimisation
- #protected-act
- #bad-faith
- #time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an agency forklift truck driver for Extraman Ltd at Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd from February 2018.
- In November 2020, Britvic conducted a recruitment exercise to directly employ some agency workers; the claimant applied but was unsuccessful.
- On 6 December 2020, the claimant raised a concern to his line manager at Britvic that only white Europeans were being appointed.
- On 21 December 2020, Britvic required the claimant's assignment to be terminated because he was seen on CCTV taking steel drums without permission.
- The claimant's contract with Extraman was a 'Contract for Service' with no obligation to provide or accept work.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of Extraman and therefore could not claim unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant started assignment at Britvic
The claimant began working as an agency forklift truck driver at Britvic through Extraman Ltd.
-
Claimant informed he was unsuccessful in Britvic job application
The claimant was told he had not been selected for a permanent position at Britvic.
-
Claimant raised discrimination concern
The claimant told his line manager at Britvic that only white Europeans were being appointed to permanent roles.
-
Claimant took steel drum from Britvic
The claimant was caught on CCTV taking a steel drum from Britvic's premises without permission.
-
Assignment terminated by Britvic
Britvic required Extraman to end the claimant's assignment due to the drum incident.
-
Claimant stated he no longer worked for Extraman
In an email, the claimant said 'I do not work for Extraman anymore' and requested holiday pay.
-
P45 issued with termination date
Extraman issued a P45 showing the termination date as 14 March 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of the agency, Extraman Limited, and therefore entitled to claim unfair dismissal. It also considered whether Extraman victimised the claimant for raising a race discrimination concern.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- Unfair dismissal: The claimant was an agency worker with a 'Contract for Service' that did not create an employment relationship. The tribunal found he was not an employee of Extraman, so the claim failed.
- Victimisation: The claimant alleged that Extraman victimised him for raising a concern about race discrimination in Britvic's recruitment. However, the tribunal found that the termination of his assignment was due to a separate incident—taking a steel drum without permission—and not because of any protected act.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers should check their contract status: if there is no mutuality of obligation, they are unlikely to be employees and cannot claim unfair dismissal.
- Raising a discrimination concern is a protected act, but the employer must have knowledge of it and act because of it for a victimisation claim to succeed.
- Time limits for bringing claims are strict; even if employment status is disputed, it is wise to present a claim within three months of the effective date of termination.
- If an agency worker believes they are an employee, they should seek legal advice early to understand their rights and the evidence needed to establish employment status.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the critical importance of employment status for agency workers. The claimant, a forklift truck driver placed by Extraman Limited at Britvic Soft Drinks, believed he was an employee of the agency and therefore entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. However, the tribunal examined his contract and found it was a 'Contract for Service'—meaning there was no obligation on Extraman to provide work, nor on the claimant to accept it. Without that 'mutuality of obligation', he was not an employee.
The claimant also alleged victimisation, claiming that Extraman ended his assignment because he raised a concern that only white Europeans were being appointed to permanent roles at Britvic. But the evidence showed that the assignment was terminated because Britvic required it after the claimant was seen on CCTV taking a steel drum without permission. The tribunal accepted that this was the real reason, not the protected act.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the claimant, the outcome might have been different if he had clearer evidence of an employment relationship—for example, if his contract had included an obligation on Extraman to offer work and on him to accept it. He also could have presented his unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit, even if he was unsure of his status, to preserve his rights.
For Extraman, the case shows the importance of documenting the reasons for ending an assignment. The company was able to point to the drum incident as the trigger, which helped defeat the victimisation claim.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision is a reminder that agency workers in the UK are often not employees of the agency, and therefore cannot claim unfair dismissal. The legal test for employment status—mutuality of obligation and control—remains a high bar. Anyone in a similar position should carefully review their contract and seek advice before assuming they have employment rights. The case also underscores that victimisation claims require a clear link between a protected act and a detriment; a separate legitimate reason for the detriment will defeat the claim.
Similar cases
Harassment claim against individual manager allowed to proceed late
A former employee's harassment and victimisation claims against her employer were deemed in time if there was conduct over a period, but time was extended for a harassment claim against the individual manager.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Fixed-term contract not renewed after long-term sickness: tribunal dismisses claims and awards costs
An LSE Fellow who alleged sexual harassment by a student and then never returned to work has lost his unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The tribunal found his allegations were dishonest and made in bad faith, and ordered him to pay the LSE's costs on an indemnity basis.