Miss Shahehna Begum v Om Erin Ltd t/a Bromptons Opticians — 2024

Miss Shahehna Begum started work for Om Erin Ltd t/a Bromptons Opticians in September 2017 as a trainee dispensing optician on a PAYE basis. The tribunal found that by the end of October 2018 she wanted higher pay, the respondent offered an increase to a gross annual salary of £24,000, and she rejected that offer. The respondent then proposed a locum arrangement under which she could work at a higher daily rate and choose the days she accepted. The tribunal found the claimant accepted that change, and her employment ended on 30 November 2018, when she was issued with a P45.

From November 2018 onwards the claimant submitted monthly invoices for locum work, chose whether to accept dates offered by the respondent, and also worked for other practices. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation, no set or minimum number of days required by the respondent, and that the respondent could not control when the claimant attended. Although the claimant remained subject to ABDO supervision requirements and site policies, those obligations were found to arise from the separate training supervision arrangement rather than from an employment contract. Applying the statutory definitions in s.230 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited on the employment-status question, including Ready Mixed Concrete, The Aramis, Cable & Wireless v Muscat, Cotswold Development Construction v Williams and the business reality approach, the tribunal held that by February 2022 the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent.

Because status failed, the claimant's unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal/notice pay, breach of contract/notice pay and holiday pay claims were dismissed without the tribunal needing to reach their substantive merits. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination claims had already been struck out following non-compliance with Judge Goodman's Unless Order requiring medical evidence, and that is why the final hearing proceeded before Employment Judge Gidney sitting alone. The reasons also record that the claimant had been an employee up to November 2018, but after that date the respondent was her client or customer rather than her employer.