Case 1602061/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perkins v The Best Connection Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602061/2020
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Perkins registered with The Best Connection Group Ltd in June 2019 as an agency worker and worked on a number of assignments until March 2020. His ET1 referred to unpaid holiday pay and also ticked unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had already stood dismissed after a prior notice from Employment Judge Jenkins because the claimant did not have 2 years' service and did not object. At the hearing the claimant also referred to possible disability discrimination in his schedule of loss, but the tribunal explained that no such claim was properly before it and that any additional complaint would require a written amendment application.
The issue the tribunal decided was whether the claimant accrued holiday pay while furloughed. The written terms of engagement said the arrangement was a contract for services only during assignments, that no contract existed between assignments, that the claimant was a worker not an employee, and that he would not receive payment for time not spent on assignment. The claimant accepted in evidence that before furlough he did not accrue holiday between assignments and that he could decline assignments. He was furloughed from 11 May 2020, having last worked on assignment around 17 March 2020, and the furlough letter said he could not work for the respondent while furloughed and could work for other companies.
Applying the cited authorities on employee and worker status, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Clark, Autoclenz, Uber and Carmichael, together with the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 13 ERA 1996 principles discussed in the judgment, the tribunal found there was no contractual right to accrue paid holiday during furlough. It held that there was no subsisting contract between assignments, no obligation on the claimant to accept work, no obligation on the respondent to offer work, and no contract under which the claimant was undertaking to personally perform work or services for the respondent while furloughed. The tribunal also said the Government guidance and the way another agency handled furlough did not determine the legal test. The holiday pay claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 included an unfair dismissal claim, but Employment Judge Jenkins notified the claimant that it would stand dismissed because he did not have 2 years' service and did not respond. The reserved judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim therefore stood dismissed before the merits hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal treated the remaining live complaint as a claim for accrued holiday pay during furlough. It held there was no contractual entitlement to accrue holiday while furloughed and no worker status under the Working Time Regulations 1998 during that period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Ready Mixed Concrete
- mutuality of obligation
- Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Carmichael v National Power Plc
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Regulations 13, 13A, 14 and 30 WTR 1998
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.