Case 2601651/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v J V Hyland T/a Sign Windows and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601651/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone at Leicester on 20 and 21 January 2020. The tribunal was deciding whether Ms Pfeiffer was an employee, or alternatively a worker, for the period 12 March 2012 to 28 February 2019. It was not determining the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal, protected disclosure, unlawful deduction, working time or Equality Act complaints.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Pfeiffer had previously worked for the old company and then returned to work for Mr Hyland in 2012. It found that, in practice, she was paid an hourly rate for time worked regardless of whether she generated sales or leads; the clock cards she completed were records of work done rather than invoices; and she worked from Mr Hyland's office using a telephone and line provided and paid for by him. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that hours were paid as a goodwill payment and found that she carried little financial risk because she was paid for hours worked whether or not the work produced business.
In assessing status, the tribunal applied the usual employment-status authorities, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Carmichael, Nethermere, Pimlico Plumbers, Autoclenz, Byrne Brothers and Windle. It found that Ms Pfeiffer was personally recruited to do telesales, did not hold herself out as running her own telesales business, had no unfettered right of substitution, and was subject to sufficient control because the people she could call were limited to approved leads and former customers. It also relied on the 2003 letter from the company secretary describing her as a permanent member of staff paid on a per-hour basis net of income tax, although that letter was not treated as conclusive on its own.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the relationship was one of employer and employee. It said that if it had been wrong about employee status, it would still have found that Ms Pfeiffer was a worker for the purposes of section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, section 43B ERA 1996, regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 83(2) Equality Act 2010. No monetary award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that Ms Pfeiffer was an employee of the first respondent from 12 March 2012 to 28 February 2019. It did not determine the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, wage, holiday pay or Equality Act complaints at this hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Carmichael mutuality of obligation
- Nethermere flexibility of hours
- Pimlico Plumbers substitution principles
- Autoclenz realism and substance
- Byrne Brothers client/customer distinction
- Secretary of State for Justice v Windle
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.43K ERA 1996
- s.83(2) Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.