I doubt it, to be honest, jp, at least no case against the employer, but possibly against the agency.
If the lad is an agency worker and is paid via the agency rather than from the company directly, then he is likely to be a 'worker' rather than an employee, (which provides the right to claim unfair dismissal). Agency workers have a tripartite relationship between the hirer (the employer), the provider (the agency) and the worker (agency staff). He would have to try and prove that he had a type of employment status known as 'employee' with the hirer/provider and there's a lot of case law out there for claimants that have tried pursuing a case to Tribunal, arguing that they meet the definition of employee for employment status. It's arguable whether he could pursue against the agency for unfair dismissal, however they would probably argue that there was no requirement to provide him with work, or for him to carry it out (meeting the definition of mutuality of obligation). Expert HR advises employers and summarises well here:
The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93) do not
introduce a new right for agency workers to claim unfair dismissal. An
agency worker can claim unfair dismissal only if he or she is an
employee and meets the other qualifying requirements. An agency worker
will be an employee if he or she works under a contract of employment
with the temporary work agency. Alternatively, the worker could, in
exceptional situations, be an employee of the hirer. If he or she does
not have employee status with either the agency or the hirer, he or she
cannot claim unfair dismissal.
The Regulations provide that the dismissal of an agency
worker who is an employee will be automatically unfair if the reason, or
principal reason, for dismissal was one of the grounds listed in
reg.17(3) of the Regulations (essentially, making or the intention to make a complaint protected by the Act - I've listed them below). The listed grounds include where the
agency worker brings a claim under the Regulations, or alleges that an
agency or hirer has breached the Regulations (including where the hirer
or agency suspects that the agency worker has done or intends to do
either of these things). The agency worker does not need to meet the
qualifying condition of one year’s service (or two years' service for
employees whose employment begins on or after 6 April 2012) to bring a
claim. The grounds are:
Asserting the right to the same basic working and employment
conditions to which they would have been entitled had they been
directly recruited by the hirer in relation to:
pay; working time duration; night work;rest periods; rest breaks; andcontractual annual leave.
For example, if an agency worker who has a contract of
employment with the agency alleges that he or she does not benefit from
the same basic working and employment conditions that he or she would
have received if directly recruited to the job, despite having worked
for the required period, and, as a result, the agency ceases to employ
the agency worker, the worker could bring a claim of unfair dismissal
against his or her employer (the temporary work agency) and the
dismissal would be automatically unfair.
Some of these rights apply from the first day a worker is
engaged at a hirer organisation. Other rights apply only after the
worker has been with the same hirer in the same or a substantively
similar role for 12 weeks.
The above covers the Agency Worker Regulations and auto unfair dismissal for asserting the rights afforded by the Regulations; NOT unfair dismissal as we all know it. He'll probably have a job arguing that he's an employee of the agency to make a claim against them for unfair dismissal, IMO...if I've spoken toomuch legalese, please let me know and I'll try again