Mr M Hale and v Respondent — 2025

The claimant brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and failure to provide an itemised pay statement. The tribunal first had to decide whether he was an employee or worker of Adam Feeney, because the statutory rights relied on only apply if that relationship exists. The claimant said he undertook dabbing work on a 32-storey building from early September 2023 to December 2023, was paid on a piecework basis at £4 per square metre, and had no written contract. The tribunal also noted WhatsApp messages showing payments described as “Before tax”, “In bank” and “Sent”.

On the evidence given by the claimant, the tribunal found that he worked on a self-employed basis and was an independent contractor rather than an employee or worker. It accepted that he had no set hours, could come and go as he wanted, could take time off when he wanted, was free to send someone else to do the work on his behalf, used his own tools, and was not subject to grievance or disciplinary procedures. The tribunal found there was no requirement of personal service, no mutuality of obligation, and no control exerted by the respondent.

The tribunal referred to section 230 ERA 1996 and identified personal service, control and mutuality of obligation as the key factors in determining whether an employment relationship existed. It also noted the claimant’s own evidence that he considered himself self-employed and understood that he had fewer employment rights. The tribunal concluded that the parties conducted their relationship on the basis of a self-employed independent contractor arrangement.

Because the claimant was not an employee or worker, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either complaint. Both claims were therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.