Mr M Lamjafjaf v Runnymede Borough Council and 1 other — 2022

The claimant said he worked for the first respondent from 3 August 2021 to 14 September 2021 as an electrical maintenance operative and claimed 1 week’s notice pay plus detriments after he raised health and safety concerns. The respondents said he was an agency worker supplied through Matrix, Spencer Clarke and Sapphire, not an employee or worker under s230 ERA 1996.

The tribunal accepted that there was no express contract between the claimant and either end user respondent. It found that the contractual documents, including the customer agreement with Matrix, the Sapphire letter, the personal details form and the assignment details form, explained the working relationship. Although the claimant relied on his interview with Mr Melia, his uniform, security passwords and entry codes, the tribunal held that those matters were not enough to make it necessary to imply a contract of employment with either respondent.

Applying the common law approach in James v London Borough of Greenwich and Tilson v Alstom Transport, the tribunal concluded that a contract of service should not be implied where the contractual arrangements already adequately explained the relationship. It therefore found that the claimant was not employed by either respondent and dismissed the breach of contract claim for notice pay.

On the whistleblowing claims, the respondents accepted that the claimant was a worker under s43K ERA 1996 for those purposes, and the tribunal recorded that the protected disclosure detriment claims would proceed to final hearing. The judgment did not determine the merits of those whistleblowing allegations at this stage.