Ms Tracy Evans Second Claimant: Ms Celine Coyne Third Claimant: Ms Jane Haraglova Fourth Claimant: Ms Beth Stevens v Solace Womens’ Aid — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 22 and 23 August 2022 before Employment Judge Adkin, the only issue was whether each of the four counsellor claimants was a worker within the meaning of s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 so that they could pursue holiday pay claims. The respondent described the engagements as self-employed, but the tribunal held that the contractual label was not decisive and examined the reality of the arrangements.

The judge found that the claimants were engaged on standard terms, with little bargaining power, a fixed day rate that increased from £130 to £140, an expectation of 46 weeks' work a year, and a requirement to give notice for leave. The claimants were paid even when clients cancelled, used respondent email addresses and mobile phones, accessed the respondent's systems, and were subject to the respondent's policies and regular clinical meetings. The tribunal found those features pointed to a significant degree of integration into Solace Women's Aid.

On personal service, the substitution clause was limited to delegation to an appropriately skilled contractor approved by the respondent, and there was no evidence that any real substitution occurred in practice. The tribunal accepted that the counselling relationship was expected to continue with the same counsellor over a course of therapy, and it did not treat the September 2019 rescheduling example as a substitution. It concluded that the service users were clients of the respondent organisation, that the respondent was not a client or customer of the claimants' own business, and that each claimant was a worker. The judgment therefore allowed the holiday pay claims to proceed, but it did not determine any holiday pay remedy or award.