Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011


The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1999 at a meeting of a Fostering Panel which was to consider withdrawing her approval as a foster parent.
The Employment Tribunal was bound as is the Employment Appeal Tribunal by the judgments of the Court of Appeal in W v Essex County Council [1998] 3 WLR 534 and Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [1999] EWCA Civ 1116 to hold that the relationship between foster carer and local authority was not contractual. It is prerequisite that a ‘worker’ as defined in Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230(3) which is incorporated in the definition of ‘worker’ for the purposes of Employment Rights Act 1999 sections 10 to 12 works under a contract. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant did not work for the Respondent pursuant to a contract.
Slade J
[2011] UKEAT 0230 – 10 – 2401
Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3), Employment Rights Act 1999 10 11 12
CitedW 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another CA 2-Apr-1998
A Local Authority had a duty of care to a fostering family when allocating children. A child was known to have a history of sexual abuse and was fostered with a family with other children, and no warning had been given.
Foster parents sued the . .
CitedRowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 26-Mar-1999
The defendant appealed a finding of the EAT that the claimant had standing to claim discrimination under the Act in the way her application to be a foster mother had been treated.
Held: After the EAT decision in W v Essex, it was clear that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428242