A Sharma For the v A Barnes — 2022

The tribunal heard the case on 3 March 2022 by Cloud Video Platform. The sole issue was whether the claimant was entitled to unfair dismissal protection, which depended on whether he was an employee rather than a worker at the relevant time. The respondent denied that the claimant was ever employed by it, but the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been employed as an apprentice until 7 August 2015.

The claimant said that his employment continued beyond that date and that he remained an employee throughout his later painting and decorating work. He relied on features including the way work was allocated, the daily rate, the alleged inability to negotiate terms, restrictions on substitution, supervision at sites, and the use of branded clothing and identification. The respondent said that after the claimant’s written resignation on 31 July 2015 he entered a series of subcontract agreements, and Mr Watson gave evidence that the agreements had to be signed before work began.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the agreements were signed later than the dates shown on them, finding that assertion was not proved on the balance of probabilities. It also found that the matters relied on by the claimant did not amount to the kind of control or obligation indicative of employment. In particular, the tribunal regarded the substitution provisions, the health and safety induction requirement, the site visits, and the clothing requirements as consistent with the respondent’s contractual and safety responsibilities rather than employee status.

The tribunal concluded that the photographs showing the claimant in clothing bearing the respondent’s name were consistent with the earlier apprentice period. It therefore found that the apprenticeship ended on 7 August 2015 and that, considering the evidence in the round, the claimant was not an employee after that date. The unfair dismissal claim accordingly did not succeed.