The claimant in this case was a serving police officer who held a number of football coaching qualifications.  Upon the promotion of PSNI Football Club to the Championship League One, the manager was required to have at least the UEFA B License.  The manager at that time, James Kirk, did not have that qualification yet the claimant did.   Therefore, it was agreed that Mr Kirk would swap roles with the claimant, who had been a coach at that time.   This was essentially only for external purposes and for all intents and purposes Mr Kirk remained as the manager. The claimant outlined that he did not ask for or expect to be paid for the swap in roles.

This swap was completed in April 2016.  The contract signed by the claimant outlined that he was an independent contractor and that there was to be payment of £250 per calendar month in ‘consultancy fees’ based upon invoices that would be submitted by the claimant.   The claimant never actually submitted any invoices to the club.

In January 2018 the claimant received a phone call whilst he was on holiday to be told that he was going to be released from his contract.   At a later meeting, the members of the Board apologised for the procedure by which the claimant had been told that his contract was ending but that there could be nothing done about it. The claimant claimed for, inter alia, unfair dismissal, national minimum wage and holiday pay.  The parties to the proceedings agreed that if the claimant had employment status then the dismissal would be automatically unfair as the statutory procedure had not been followed.

The Tribunal in having to determine the employment status of the claimant outlined the pertinent cases. On the issue of control, the Tribunal considered that there was some control in terms of the times of training and matches but that this would be the norm with any sporting club, whether professional or amateur.   The Tribunal found that, in light of the claimant only attending 9 out of 20 meetings with the Board, there was limited control exercised over his duties. In terms of integration, the claimant relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Pimlico Plumbers and the fact that he wore an overcoat with the PSNI Crest when at training and at matches.  The Tribunal found that the claimant was not required to wear the coat but they were actually provided for substitutes.  Finally, in terms of mutuality of obligations the Tribunal found that as the claimant was a serving PSNI Officer he was occasionally on call during the match times and that it would not be possible to also serve under a second contract of employment.  It was held that the conflict could not be properly reconciled.  As a result, the Tribunal held that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker.  The claims were dismissed.

Practical Lessons

The employment status of individuals has been an issue that the courts have recently had to deal with in light of the so-called ‘gig economy’.  The issue in this case was a contract made to essentially circumvent the rules of the Irish Football Association.    The Tribunal demonstrates in this case that they will have to look at the facts of each particular case in determining the employment status.  In this situation, they did look beyond the contract signed that outlined that the claimant was an independent contractor.   However, in looking behind the contract it was clear that the claimant was more like a volunteer rather than having any firm status as an employee or a worker.  Employers must bear in mind that the contract will only provide some of the answers but that most of the pertinent questions will be answered through a factual analysis.