Mr A Korn (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on employment status in a dog-walking arrangement operating under the name Sociable Canines. Employment Judge Webster held that Miss G Cummins was not an employee under section 230(1) ERA 1996, not a worker under section 230(3), and did not undertake employment within section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. There was no written contract between the parties, so the tribunal examined the practical reality of the arrangement.

Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Carmichael, Autoclenz and related authority, the tribunal found that the claimant was paid directly by dog owners, could refuse new work, and could arrange cover or substitutes. It accepted that Tracy Robins organised the field, insurance, referrals and cover arrangements, and that there were expectations about timings, rates and field rules, but held that these features did not amount to sufficient control or the irreducible minimum of a contract of service. The tribunal also found that the claimant was not personally obliged to perform the work and therefore was not a limb (b) worker.

Because the claimant lacked employee or worker status, the claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and maternity discrimination could not proceed. The tribunal therefore dismissed those claims. In reaching the Equality Act conclusion, the tribunal relied on Jivraj v Hashwani and Halawi v WDFG UK Ltd in holding that the extended definition of employment was not satisfied.