The respondent is a building and maintenance company. The claimant began working with the respondent as a result of responding to an advert on Gumtree and was engaged to do joinery work on a site from April 2019 until the contract ended with the main contractor in or around 16th January 2020. The Claimant had some email exchanges relating to starting and pay but there was never any written agreement between the parties. In evidence, the claimant accepted that he was engaged as a ‘self-employed joiner’ on the site. The intention of both parties was that he was engaged on a self-employed basis.

There was no requirement for the claimant to attend for particular days or times; instead, he was at liberty to choose not to report.  Also, the claimant only received pay for the work that he undertook and the time he spent on site.  He did not receive any sick pay or holiday pay.   He also outlined that he had no expectation of any entitlement to those payments. Furthermore, the claimant sought alternative work when the site he was working on was closed. There seemed to be some issue between the respondent and the main contractor, which led to the respondent informing the claimant that he should not attend the site until he was told to do so. Despite that the claimant attended the site on 6th January 2020 and continued to provide joinery services. The Tribunal found that he had not been asked to go to work and he had done this by his own choice and at his own risk.

In January 2020 the claimant entered into a contract (on a self-employed basis) with the main contractor.  He did not give any notice to the respondent.  Lastly, it was also found that the claimant had a unique tax reference and submitted self-assessment accounts which took into account business expenses.

The claimant brought a claim for unlawful deductionary 2020. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not employed nor was he a ws relating to the work that he had undertaken in November and December 2019 and in Januorker.  The Tribunal outlined that there is a balancing exercise between the many factors that had to be considered.   This was on the basis of the considerations above including the intention of the parties, the freedom the claimant had and the tax situation.  As a result, the claim for unlawful deductions from wages was rejected.

Practical Lessons

This case is yet another one that can be added to the list of ‘employment status’ cases.  This may seem like a fairly straightforward one but it does provide a useful overview of the way in which the Tribunal will make these decisions.  It is a multi-factorial one where a balancing exercise has to be carried out.   The intentions of the parties is still a weighty factor to be considered even though the courts have said they will look behind the label that may be given to a particular relationship. 

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