Zero-hours security officer loses unfair dismissal claim over COVID test site removal

A misunderstanding with serious consequences

This case shows how a breakdown in communication over COVID-19 self-isolation rules can lead to a loss of regular work – but not necessarily to a successful unfair dismissal claim. The security officer, who had worked for G4S since 2018, was assigned to a COVID test site for 48 hours a week. When she mistakenly sent her son's positive test result to her manager, G4S concluded she had breached isolation rules and removed her from the site. She was told she could not work on NHS sites again.

The legal hurdle: employment status

The tribunal's decision turned on the claimant's employment status. She was on a zero-hours contract, described as a 'casual worker'. Under UK employment law, only 'employees' can claim unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the lack of mutuality of obligation – a key test for employee status – meant she was not an employee. Even though she worked regular hours for over a year, the contractual framework remained casual.

What G4S could have done differently

G4S's handling of the situation was not without fault. The HR business partner initially told the claimant she was employed by a third party, which was incorrect. A clearer investigation into the COVID test mix-up and a proper appeal process might have avoided the dispute. However, the tribunal's focus was on jurisdiction, not the fairness of the decision.

Why this matters for similar claims

This case is a reminder that regular working patterns do not automatically create employee status. For anyone on a zero-hours contract, the right to claim unfair dismissal is very limited. The claimant also undermined her own case by continuing to accept other assignments from G4S after the dispute – the tribunal noted this showed there was no dismissal. Anyone in a similar position should check their contract and seek early legal advice before assuming they have employment rights.