Mrs J Bruin v Ms R Silk — 2022

The tribunal found that the 22 April 2021 tutorial letter was a contract and, looking at the reality of the arrangement under section 230 ERA 1996 and Uber BV v Aslam, that the claimant worked personally under a worker’s contract from the outset and in substance was an employee. The respondent exercised substantial control through highly prescriptive worksheets and charts, the claimant could not send a substitute, and the tribunal rejected the tutorial label as a true description of the relationship.

On pay, the tribunal construed the 26 May 2021 employment letter as providing a basic hourly rate of £8.91 for 208 hours per month, with free accommodation in addition to cash pay. It rejected the respondent’s case that accommodation formed part of the wage, found the monthly gross wage to be £1,853.28 and the annual equivalent to be £22,239.36, and held that the daily rate was £106.92. On that basis it found unauthorised deductions of £491.81 on the first payslip, £192.06 on the second, and £1,519.85 for the August pay period, totalling £2,203.72 gross.

The tribunal also held that the claimant accrued annual leave from 22 April 2021 and, on a four-day week basis, was entitled to 20 days per year under regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. By the termination date of 31 July 2021 she had accrued 5.5 days and had taken none, so holiday pay due was £481.14 gross. In relation to overtime, the tribunal accepted that she worked about one extra hour per day on average across 52 days and awarded £463.32 for breach of contract at £8.91 per hour, but it rejected payment for standby time because it found no requirement to work or to remain available for work. The total award was £3,148.18 gross.