Mr Z Kang v General Nuclear International Limited — 2024

At a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 31 October and 1 November 2024, the tribunal considered whether Mr Z Kang had employee or worker status in relation to General Nuclear International Limited. Mr Kang had been employed by China Nuclear Power Engineering Company Limited, moved to the UK in 2019, and was seconded to GNI and then to NNB to work on the Hinkley Point C project. The secondment agreement named CNPECL as his employer and required him to work for NNB on the secondment terms.

Applying the employment-status authorities, the tribunal accepted that there was a contract involving GNI but found that Mr Kang's actual day-to-day work was for NNB, under NNB host managers, with NNB equipment, security pass, uniform, email address and leave approval. GNI's role in visa sponsorship, payroll, expenses, travel approval and related administration did not amount to sufficient control over his work. The tribunal considered the evidence about weekly and monthly reports, the home manager role, tax documents, and confirmation letters, but held that those matters did not show that GNI was his employer.

The tribunal therefore found that Mr Kang was not an employee of GNI under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, not a worker under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and not an employee for section 83 of the Equality Act 2010 purposes. It distinguished Fitton v City of Edinburgh Council and applied the approach in Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, Uber, Sejpal, Pimlico Plumbers, United Taxis and Patel. As a result, the unfair and constructive dismissal, holiday pay, blacklisting detriment, and direct and indirect race discrimination claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and no remedy was awarded.