Mr M Doughty, the claimant’s partner. v Respondent — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Ms E Nunn was an employee of G. & M.J. Crouch & Son Ltd for the period from May 2018 to 5 February 2020 under s.230(1) ERA 1996. The tribunal applied the Ready Mixed Concrete and Autoclenz authorities and considered mutuality of obligation, personal service, control, and the overall consistency of the arrangements with employment.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had agreed to be paid £20 per hour, to invoice through Virtus, and to account for her own tax and national insurance, with no paid holiday, sick pay or pension before 6 February 2020. It also accepted that she had flexibility over when and where she worked and that the parties initially labelled the arrangement as self-employed. Those features were not decisive.

The tribunal found that, in reality, the claimant worked consistently and effectively full time for the respondent for most of the relevant period; the respondent regularly provided the work and expected it to be done; the claimant used the respondent’s equipment and software; she was directed by Mr Crouch and the Finance Director; and she was integrated into the business, including being held out to third parties as Accounts Manager. The tribunal also found that she was required to perform the work personally and could not in practice send a substitute.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was an employee of the respondent from May 2018 until 5 February 2020 and therefore had sufficient service to pursue a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The parties had agreed that the Equality Act allegations related to the period after 6 February 2020, when the respondent accepted that she was an employee, so this preliminary ruling did not determine the merits of the sex discrimination, harassment, or whistleblowing allegations.