Mr R Sohal v First Group — 2022

Mr R Sohal said he had been employed by DHU Healthcare CIC from 2017 until an alleged dismissal on 4 November 2020. The tribunal found instead that, throughout the relevant period, he was an agency worker employed by Logistical Support Limited. That finding was supported by 2017 documents showing correspondence with Mr Marc Wilson of Logistical Support Limited, an application form, an initial medical questionnaire and employee bank details. The tribunal also noted that there were no equivalent hiring documents with DHU, no DHU contract or payslips, and no basis for treating the agency arrangement as a sham.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Sohal worked as a driver transporting DHU clinicians to and from patients, and that he was in regular contact with DHU staff. It held, however, that those contacts did not show management or supervision by DHU, nor a level of integration sufficient to alter the legal relationship. It rejected Mr Sohal’s evidence that DHU had sent him a document admitting he was its employee from 2017, and it found the email of 4 November 2020 from Heidi Stevens to Mr Marc Wilson, which said an agency driver who would not wear a face mask was "too high risk", was consistent with an agency/hirer arrangement rather than a dismissal by DHU.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on implied contracts and dual employment, including Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Limited, Smith v Carillion (JM) Limited and Tilson v Alstom Transport, the tribunal held that this was not one of the rare cases where it was necessary to imply a contract of employment between Mr Sohal and DHU. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim against DHU Healthcare CIC. The judgment stated that the unfair dismissal claim against Logistical Support Limited was unaffected and would continue to a full hearing.