Mr K Tomlinson v R W Taylor Joinery Limited AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: At Nottingham, in public — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing to determine the legal status of the relationship between Mr K Tomlinson and R W Taylor Joinery Limited for claims including a statutory redundancy payment, holiday pay and notice pay. The tribunal found that Mr Tomlinson had worked for Mr Taylor since 1983, that the business incorporated in 2002, and that Mr Tomlinson then took a nominal 25% shareholding for £25 and became a statutory director. The tribunal accepted that, after incorporation, he continued to be paid weekly through PAYE, received payslips, and had his rate of pay set unilaterally by Mr Taylor.

The tribunal found that the practical running of the business did not materially change after incorporation. Mr Taylor retained control of the business, including customer relations, estimates, recruitment and financial decisions, while Mr Tomlinson continued to carry out the workshop work. There were no written contracts or agreed terms altering the parties' earlier employment relationship, no board meetings, and Mr Tomlinson carried no financial risk in the success of the respondent. Although he had some autonomy in how he organised his work and leave, the tribunal found that this was consistent with an experienced and well-regarded employee in a small business.

Applying the statutory definition in section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz and Hall v Lorimer, the tribunal concluded that the total picture showed mutuality of obligation, personal performance and sufficient control for employment status. It also considered the company-director authorities cited by the parties, including Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives and Bottrill/Neufeld, but held that Mr Tomlinson's status as a minority shareholder and statutory director did not alter the reality of the relationship. The tribunal held that he remained an employee, and therefore did not need separately to decide whether he was also a worker. The case was left to proceed, if necessary, to a final hearing on the substantive claims; the tribunal observed that the redundancy claim appeared formulaic, while the notice and holiday claims raised evidential issues.