Miss P Miluska v Rahman Amir Riaz Hussain and 4 others — 2023

This was a reserved judgment on a preliminary hearing held by Employment Judge Connolly (sitting alone) to determine whether the claimant was an employee or worker of the third, fourth or fifth respondents under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and s.83 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of the fifth respondent, Roman Property Group Limited (RPGL), under s.230(1) ERA 1996, and consequently also fell within the extended definition of employment in s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 and the definition of worker in s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996.

In reaching that conclusion the judge considered mutuality of obligation, control, integration and other factors, finding that RPGL was obliged to provide and pay for work and that the claimant was obliged to perform it personally; that RPGL exercised a significant degree of control over what work she did, when and where; that she was integrated into the business through a work email, telephone line, WhatsApp group and office base at Brindley House; and that the parties genuinely intended an employment relationship. The judge attached limited weight to the written contract because its detail had been drafted by the claimant, but noted it was signed by Mr Kabir and reflected how the relationship worked in practice. Where the claimant's evidence conflicted with that of Mr Hussain, the judge preferred the claimant's evidence, describing Mr Hussain's evidence as inconsistent with contemporaneous messages, changeable and evasive on some issues.

The practical effect is that all complaints will proceed against the fifth respondent; the direct pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints will also proceed against the first and second respondents; and all claims against the third and fourth respondents are dismissed. The claimant's application to amend to join a further individual respondent was withdrawn and dismissed. No substantive findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal, discrimination, wages, payslip or written reasons complaints were made, and no remedy was determined at this hearing.