Casual road safety trainer with 22 years' service loses unfair dismissal claim due to employment status and time limits
A tribunal ruled that a casual Bikeability trainer who worked for Lancashire County Council for 22 years was not an employee under a global contract, and her unfair dismissal claim was out of time. However, her redundancy payment claim can proceed.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #global-umbrella-contract
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #temporary-cessation-of-work
- #bikeability-training
- #continuous-service
- #time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent as a casual road safety trainer from 1999 to July 2021.
- From 2009, the claimant regularly delivered Bikeability training in schools each academic year.
- The respondent decided to stop internal Bikeability delivery after July 2021.
- The claimant last worked on 16 July 2021 and was paid on 30 September 2021.
- The claimant presented her claim on 25 April 2022, after ACAS early conciliation from 12 March to 1 April 2022.
Timeline
-
Start of casual work
The claimant began working for the respondent on various road safety projects.
-
Bikeability training begins
The claimant attended a national standards instructor course and started delivering Bikeability training in schools.
-
Bikeability project ending announced
Jan Reef informed the claimant that the Bikeability project would end in July 2021.
-
Last day of work
The claimant performed her last day of work for the respondent.
-
Overview of potential casual work
Ms Brindle sent an overview of potential casual work for the coming 12 months; the claimant expressed interest in Modeshift training.
-
Modeshift training cancelled
Ms Hall informed the claimant that Modeshift training was cancelled due to the omicron variant; the claimant understood no suitable work would be available until autumn 2022.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The claimant notified ACAS under the early conciliation procedure.
-
Claimant's letter to respondent
The claimant wrote to the respondent asserting that her employment ended on 17 December 2021 and claiming a statutory redundancy payment.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee under a global or umbrella contract covering her casual work, and whether her claims were brought within the statutory time limits.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not an employee under a global or umbrella contract. She worked on individual assignments without mutuality of obligation between them. The unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were presented out of time – the last assignment ended in July 2021, but she did not present her claim until April 2022. However, the redundancy payment claim was allowed to proceed because she wrote to the council within six months of the relevant date, triggering an extension.
- Unfair dismissal and breach of contract: dismissed as out of time.
- Statutory redundancy payment claim: can proceed to a full hearing.
- Holiday pay claim: withdrawn by the claimant.
Lessons & takeaways
- Casual workers with long service may still not be employees if there is no ongoing obligation to offer or accept work between assignments.
- Time limits for unfair dismissal are strict – you generally have three months from the effective date of termination, including ACAS early conciliation.
- For redundancy payments, the time limit is six months from the relevant date, but a written claim to the employer can extend it.
- If you believe your casual work amounts to a continuous employment relationship, seek legal advice early to assess whether a global contract exists.
- Keep records of all communications about work availability and termination to help establish when any employment ended.
This case highlights the difficulties casual workers face in establishing employee status, even after decades of service. The claimant had worked for Lancashire County Council as a road safety trainer since 1999, delivering Bikeability training in schools from 2009. When the council ended the Bikeability project in July 2021, she effectively had no further work. She argued that her long-term pattern of regular assignments created a global or umbrella contract of employment, making her an employee.
Why the tribunal rejected the global contract claim
The tribunal found no mutuality of obligation between assignments. Each period of work was a separate engagement, and neither side was obliged to offer or accept future work. The claimant was not required to accept every assignment, and the council was not required to provide work. This lack of ongoing obligation meant there was no overarching employment contract. The tribunal applied the established test from cases like Cornwall County Council v Prater and James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd.
The time limit trap
Even if the claimant had been an employee, her unfair dismissal claim was presented too late. Her last day of work was 16 July 2021, and she was paid on 30 September 2021. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 16 July 2021 – the last day she worked. She did not start ACAS early conciliation until March 2022, well beyond the three-month primary time limit. The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim in time, so no extension was granted.
What this means for similar claims
For casual workers, the key to employee status is evidence of a continuing relationship with mutual obligations. Simply working regularly over many years is not enough. Workers should also be aware that time limits run from the last day of work, not from when they realise they have been dismissed. The partial success on the redundancy payment claim shows that different time limits apply to different rights, so it is worth checking each claim separately.
Similar cases
Independent clerk to school appeals panels was a worker, not an employee — claims out of time
A long-serving independent clerk who worked for Royal Borough of Greenwich for 28 years was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. Her remaining claims for holiday pay and expenses were also dismissed as too late.
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Late claim for constructive dismissal: tribunal loses jurisdiction
A former employee of Greggs plc who resigned after grievances were not upheld had her unfair dismissal claim dismissed because she presented it 26 days after the three-month time limit.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.