This claim was for unauthorised deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998.  The main issue in this case focused on the Claimant’s employment status; was the claimant the worker of either or both respondents at all relevant times in accordance with the definition in section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996?

The Claimant did work for both Respondents between October/November 2017 and March/April 2019, driving the Respondents lorries delivering goods on behalf of the Respondents third party clients.

The Judge in this case found that the Claimant was not a worker and therefore was not entitled to any employment rights relating to his claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay.

The Tribunal found that in advance of conducting any work, it had been made clear to the Claimant that in order to do so, he had to set up a company and then have the company supply the Claimant’s services as a driver to the Respondents.  Whilst accepting this was advantageous, the Judge commented that it was not illegal.

The Judge was critical of the Claimant who he considered was attempting to portray that he was naive.  The Judge commented the Claimant entered into the agreement “with his eyes wide open”.  The Judge considered the Claimant had an understanding and had taken accountancy advice on IR35 implications before entering into the agreement with the Respondent.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-chalimoniuk-v-transkol-ltd-and-fn-transport-ltd-2601798-2019-and-2601841-2019

In a subsequent costs hearing the respondents’ costs and wasted costs applications were rejected, with the exception that the claimant must pay the respondents’ travel expenses totalling £14.85.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f2d3bbd8fa8f57ac968fbc9/Mr_S_Chalimoniuk_v_Transkol_Limited___Other__2601798_19___Other__Reserved_Judgment.pdf