In person before leaving the hearing For the v Ms Weston (Senior Manager) — 2023

Mr A Dunn brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages against Alpha Labour and Recruitment Ltd, saying he was charged £20 per week to receive his wages and that this breached national agreements in the thermal insulation industry. The tribunal treated the case as a claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and asked first whether Mr Dunn had any contract with the Respondent, and if so whether he was a worker or employee of the Respondent and whether deductions had been made from wages.

The tribunal found that the Respondent was a recruitment agency using an umbrella/intermediary structure involving Pico Business Solutions Ltd trading as Red Ark, and Biapix Ltd. Mr Dunn was told at the outset that his engagement and payment would be outsourced to Pico. He was given a Key Information Document identifying the Respondent as the employment business, Pico as the intermediary or umbrella company, and Biapix Ltd as the company responsible for paying him. The tribunal accepted evidence that the practical arrangements matched the paperwork: timesheets were signed by the end user, passed through the Respondent and Pico, and Biapix issued self-billed invoices and paid Mr Dunn.

On that basis, the tribunal held that there was no legally binding agreement between Mr Dunn and Alpha Labour and Recruitment Ltd. It found that the Respondent merely identified work opportunities and was paid by end users for sourcing labour, while Mr Dunn was paid by Biapix Ltd. Because there was no contract with the Respondent, Mr Dunn could not be an employee or worker of the Respondent, and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim therefore failed.

The tribunal also noted Mr Dunn’s reliance on the Thermal Insulation Contracting Industry National Agreement 2019-2021, but said that its terms appeared on their face to apply to employees of relevant association members rather than self-employed contractors. It did not determine whether Mr Dunn was an employee or worker of Biapix Ltd, because Biapix was not a respondent and that issue was not necessary to decide the claim.