Mr C Edefah v All Saints Hatchem Community Centre — 2022

At this open preliminary hearing the tribunal considered whether Mr Edefah was an employee and, if not, whether he was a limb b worker or an Equality Act employee. The substantive claims listed were breach of contract, unfair dismissal for assertion of a statutory right under s.104 ERA 1996, unauthorised deduction from wages / National Minimum Wage, annual leave under reg 14 of the Working Time Regulations, failure to provide itemised payslips, failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions, and age victimisation.

The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence about the December 2018 meeting and the way the arrangement operated. It found that a contract arose when he started work in January 2019, that the retrospective written contractor document was of little assistance, that he was paid about £650 a month by bank transfer, and that he worked a regular rota of about 117 hours per month as caretaker. It accepted that he opened and closed the premises, prepared rooms for users, dealt with building issues, checked cleaning, and was given instructions by the manager on some tasks.

Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, the irreducible minimum authorities of Nethermere and Carmichael, and the overall-evaluation approach in Hall v Lorimer, the tribunal found mutuality of obligation, personal service, sufficient control, little financial risk, and integration into the respondent's operations. It treated the absence of holiday pay and the fact that tax and national insurance were not deducted as factors, but gave them reduced weight in the circumstances.

The tribunal concluded that Mr Edefah was an employee under a contract of employment and that it therefore had jurisdiction to consider all of his complaints. This hearing did not determine the merits of the listed claims and no monetary award was recorded.