Background:

The claimant, a Polish national, contacted the respondent asking for a job after undertaking a one-week dog grooming course in Poland.   The respondent stated there were no jobs at that time.  However, the respondent stated the claimant could, when available, come in to help and she would get advice and basic training.  The claimant could also bring in and keep payments from her own clients. The claimant was told that she would be a volunteer but if she brought in her own work then she would need to organise her own insurance and tax as self-employed.  The claimant stated she had previous experience of running her own business so she was aware of same.

The other two part-time employees were required to sign in and out of work and were paid weekly. They also received regular paid work breaks.  The claimant, by contrast, was not put on the respondent’s rota.  The claimant also took breaks when she liked and did not have to sign in or out.  The claimant was also present when the part-time employees were raising a claim for a payment of wages and the claimant never sought payment at that time.

In May 2019 there was a comment made about a grooming job carried out at the salon.  This related to clipper burn and cuts around the groin area.  This led to the respondent repaying £70 (the cost of the groom) and £50 in a vet bill.   The respondent identified that the claimant was responsible.  As a result, the respondent told the claimant it was not working out and that she could not rent her a table.   The respondent did give her £20 for the uniform that she had bought.  It was after this that the claimant wrote requesting £2093.55 for her ‘wage’ for the work she had done over the last 7.5 weeks.

Outcome:

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s attendances at the salon were an entirely voluntary activity for the purpose of training and not work.   As a result, it was persuaded that the claimant was self-employment when she groomed her own customers’ dogs (with assistance). As a result, it was found that there were no actual hours established as being worked by the claimant for the respondent.   As a result, she was not a qualifying worker for the purpose of an unauthorised deduction from wages claim.  There was also no contract therefore there could be no breach.  Lastly, it was found that the claimant had not proven facts to shift the burden to the respondent in relation to a race discrimination claim.   The action taken by the respondent was found to be on the basis of the claimant’s competency rather than her race or nationality.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case relates to the position of volunteers and the extent to which that could shift into worker status.  Whilst it may have seemed fairly clear that the claimant was not a worker or employee in this situation it was interesting of how the Tribunal came to that decision.  It was based upon the fact that there was a variance between her actions and those of the employees, she was being provided with training, she was given the opportunity to procure her own customers and she would receive assistance with that.  That pointed towards the volunteer relationship and aligned with the intention of the parties as set out.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/