in person For the v Respondent — 2022

Mrs F Thompson had been appointed as Independent Chair of Dorset Council’s Fostering Panel from 13 February 2008 and her appointment ended on 28 May 2021. At a preliminary hearing on 17 October 2022 the tribunal had to decide whether she was an employee for the purposes of s.230 ERA 1996, because her only live complaints were unfair dismissal and breach of contract for notice. The tribunal reviewed the appointment letters, the Panel Member Agreement, the fee and expenses arrangements, annual reviews, and the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011.

The tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument that regulation 23 of the 2011 Regulations barred the claimant from being an employee. It held that the wording did not preclude employee status in this case, noting in particular that there was no evidence of a formal reappointment after 1 October 2011 and that the claimant was not employed in another relevant role within the council. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had to perform the role personally, because there was no substitute arrangement, but it was not satisfied that this was enough to establish employment status.

On mutuality of obligation, the tribunal found that attendance at panel meetings was consistently described in the documents as an expectation rather than a contractual obligation. The arrangement allowed the claimant to give notice of unavailability so that the respondent could make alternative quorum arrangements, and the tribunal found no evidence that she or other panel members were sanctioned for non-attendance. It therefore held that she had not shown the necessary mutual obligations for a contract of employment.

The tribunal also found no sufficient control or integration to support employee status. It noted that the claimant was paid a fee rather than a salary, carried out similar work for other local authorities, was not part of the respondent’s line management structure, was not subject to disciplinary or grievance procedures, and did not receive holiday or sick pay. Balancing all the factors, including the authorities cited by the parties, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was an independent office holder and not an employee. It therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints.