Mr Ainsworth Baker v MK Business Support Limited — 2022

Mr Ainsworth Baker brought a claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages, seeking £700 said to be unpaid for work done between 25 and 28 October 2021. The tribunal recorded that MK Business Support Ltd had introduced him to Advanced Fire Protection for carpentry and fire-door work at £175 a day, following an unpaid induction on 18 October 2021. He was paid for his first week, but the second week's payment was withheld after the client said the work was not to the required standard and asked him to return and rectify it.

The tribunal held that Mr Baker was self-employed and not a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996. Applying the authorities it cited, including Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors, Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd, and Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust and anor, it found there was no contract between the claimant and the respondent, no control by the respondent over his hours, place, or manner of work, and no dependence on the respondent as a sole source of income.

The tribunal also relied on the practical indicators of self-employment that it accepted in evidence: the claimant used his own van and tools, completed self-assessment/CIS paperwork, was free to work for other agencies, and was not required to sign in or seek approval to finish the work. On that basis it found the evidence for self-employment outweighed any evidence of worker status. It therefore concluded that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the unpaid wages dispute and dismissed the claim.