Mr J Sykes, Advocate For the v Mrs J M Boor (T/a Dance with Annarie)2301007/2019 — 2020

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, her parents, and other witnesses, and found that the parties met in March 2018 to discuss how the claimant might assist with the respondent's dance classes. The claimant attended regularly as a receptionist from April 2018 and also helped with a film project, but the central issue was whether she was an employee or worker, or instead a volunteer.

Applying the statutory definition in section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considering both the March 2018 discussions and the way the arrangement operated in practice, the tribunal accepted the respondent's account that the claimant volunteered without any obligation to be paid. It relied on the WhatsApp messages, the absence of any signed contract, the lack of clarity about any deferred payment, and the fact that the claimant sometimes missed sessions without apparent difficulty. On that basis, the claims for unpaid remuneration and unlawful deductions, the National Minimum Wages Regulations claim, notice, a statement of principal terms, and holiday pay all failed.

The tribunal also held that volunteers are not protected by the Equality Act 2010, referring to X v Mid Sussex Citizens' Advice Bureau, so the disability discrimination claim failed for that reason. For completeness, it went on to consider the allegations on the merits and found that the claimant did have a disability and that the respondent knew or was on notice of her mental health condition, but it rejected the alleged direct discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and detriment complaints. It found there had been no broken promise to pay deferred wages, no discriminatory connection between the film work and the claimant's disability, no disability-related reason for the ending of the receptionist arrangement, and no less favourable treatment in the respondent's contacts with the claimant's mother or the community psychiatric nurse. No award was made.