GP Holiday Pay Claim Fails: Tribunal Finds No 'Worker' Status
Dr Kevin Connaughton's claim for unpaid holiday leave against Greater Glasgow Health Board has been dismissed. The tribunal ruled he was not a 'worker' under employment law.
• public
GP Loses Holiday Pay Case Against Health Board
A General Practitioner's bid to claim compensation for unpaid holiday leave from Greater Glasgow Health Board has been unsuccessful. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an earlier decision that Dr Kevin Connaughton does not qualify as a 'worker' under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Background of the Dispute
Dr Connaughton, a GP practising in Glasgow, sought compensation for unpaid leave taken between 2011 and 2020, as well as accrued untaken annual leave. His claim hinged on whether he could be classified as a 'worker' according to relevant UK and EU legislation. The original Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled against him, a decision he then appealed.
Key Legal Arguments
Dr Connaughton's legal team argued that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the law, particularly regarding the definition of 'worker' and the need for a direct contractual relationship between the individual and the employer. They contended that Dr Connaughton 'worked under' a contract between his partnership and the Health Board, even if he wasn't a direct party to it.
The Health Board countered that established employment law principles require a direct contract for an individual to be considered a 'worker'. They also argued that Dr Connaughton's situation did not meet the EU law definition of 'worker', which involves subordination and control by the employer.
Tribunal's Decision
The EAT ultimately sided with the Health Board, stating that a direct contractual link was necessary for 'worker' status under UK law. It also agreed that Dr Connaughton's working relationship with the Health Board did not demonstrate the level of subordination required to meet the EU definition of a 'worker'. The EAT found that the regulatory framework governing GP services did not equate to the Health Board having direct control over Dr Connaughton's day-to-day work.
Lady Haldane dismissed the appeal, upholding the original tribunal’s decision that Dr Connaughton was not the health board’s worker under section 230 ERA, regulation 2 WTR or the WTD.
The Judge also indicated that the arguments that had been advanced to the employment appeals tribunal made finding that the perversity threshold had been met.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'worker' status in the context of GPs and their relationship with NHS Health Boards. It reinforces the need for a direct contractual relationship to claim certain employment rights, and confirms that regulatory oversight does not automatically equate to 'worker' status.
Read the entire judgement here: Dr Kevin Connaughton v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2025] EAT 32
