in person (unrepresented) For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Agabi was a worker or employee for the purposes of section 83(2) Equality Act 2010. He had brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, direct race discrimination, and indirect race discrimination. The respondent accepted that he was disabled by generalised anxiety disorder, but said he was self-employed and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the case.

The tribunal found that the working arrangement pointed away from worker status. There was no written contract. The claimant invoiced for each tour, was paid directly by the respondent, was not required to do a minimum number of tours, could accept or reject tours offered when he said he was available, and on the evidence arranged substitutes on a number of occasions, including at short notice. The tribunal accepted that some themed tours were more prescriptive because of licensing requirements, but treated that as consistent with the overall flexibility of the arrangement.

The tribunal also relied on the claimant's own description of himself as an actor and performer, his other work, and his evidence that this entertainer work was "side work". It noted that he gave different accounts of when he said he became a worker, including a claimed verbal agreement in May 2023, an intention to work full time from later in 2023, and a request for a zero-hours contract in February 2024. Applying the statutory definition in section 83(2) and the authorities it cited, including Uber and Sejpal, the tribunal held that he was not a worker and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.