Mrs S Heslop v Centrex Computing Services Limited — 2019

The claimant, Mrs S Heslop, and Centrex Computing Services Limited had no written contract, but the tribunal found that from February 2010 there was a contract under which she received monthly payments through payroll, paid by Mr Heslop on the respondent's behalf, and had access from time to time to employee-style benefits such as pension and death-in-service cover. The tribunal found that the arrangement was not illegal. It accepted that Mr Heslop had received accountants' advice that paying part of his salary to the claimant could be a legitimate means of reducing higher-rate tax, and found in any event that the claimant was not aware of any illegality.

On employment status, the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee because there was insufficient mutuality of obligation. It found that the respondent was not obliged to offer her work, that her workload varied significantly, that very little work was offered after March 2017, and that there was no work at all from 1 January 2019 until 27 April 2019. It also found that she could refuse work when she had other commitments, including childcare. However, the tribunal found that she was a worker within s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 because she received regular monthly payments, had little control over the timing and nature of the work, and had to perform any accepted task personally.

Because the claimant remained a worker until 27 April 2019, the tribunal found that she was entitled to wages for the period 1 January 2019 to 27 April 2019. At the end of the hearing the parties agreed the correct underpayment figure was £10,400 gross, and that sum was awarded subject to PAYE deductions. The unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims failed because the claimant was not an employee, so the tribunal did not go on to determine the effective date of termination, fairness, continuity, or notice pay.