The appellant appealed against a decision that the respondent was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230(3)(b). This involved the Court of Appeal in determining whether an individual is a 'worker' for these purposes. The appellant operated cosmetic surgery clinics and had engaged the respondent to carry out hair transplant procedures on their clients using their premises on Saturday mornings. The respondent also worked as a general practitioner in a GP practice.
The parties entered into an agreement which stated that the respondent was a self-employed independent contractor. He was paid a fee calculated by reference to the number of procedures carried out. After the appellant terminated their agreement, the respondent brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages and accrued holiday pay. The employment tribunal concluded that he was an independent contractor carrying on business on his own account and was therefore not an employee.
However, it also found that his work had been done for the appellant and their clients, and the appellant was not his client. Accordingly, the respondent was a worker under s.230(3)(b) and his claims succeeded. The EAT upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal concluded that, although the respondent was not employed under a contract of employment, he was a „worker‟ for the purposes of s230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Court held that there was no test of universal application to judge whether someone is a 'worker' under s230(3)(b). However, the 'integration test' set out in Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams “will often be appropriate”.
Lord Justice Maurice McKay stated that “Although he was not working for HMG pursuant to a contract of employment, he was clearly an integral part of its undertaking when providing services in respect of hair restoration, even though he was in business on his own account.” Lord Justice Maurice McKay also held that there is not a single key with which to unlock the words of the 1996 Act in every case.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
