Mr P. Armah v Famos Support and Services Limited T/A Famos Security — 2019

Famos Support and Services Limited was added as respondent by substitution. The tribunal held that Mr P. Armah was not an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996, but that he was a worker when he accepted individual security assignments. In reaching that conclusion it found that he could choose whether to accept work advertised via the respondent's WhatsApp group, but when he did accept an assignment he was required to perform the work personally, was subject to a degree of control over where and when he worked, and was not in business on his own account.

The tribunal found that on 5 and 6 May 2019 the claimant worked three shifts in succession over a period of 30 hours, plus travel between sites, without an 11-hour daily rest period or a 20-minute rest break after six hours. It accepted that the respondent had not made arrangements to facilitate rest and that it did not plead the security and surveillance exemption under regulation 21 WTR. The tribunal therefore found breaches of regulation 10 and regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £100 compensation, taking into account the short duration of the default, the absence of financial loss, and the health and safety risk.

The tribunal also found that the respondent unlawfully withheld £385.87 for the June 2019 shifts. The respondent relied on a 3 May 2019 agreement which said it could "charge" the claimant for missed shifts if notice was not given, but the tribunal held that this did not authorise a deduction from wages for section 13 ERA 1996 purposes. It further found that the clause was not supported by a reasonable relationship to any genuine loss and was a penalty clause. The claimant was therefore awarded £385.87 gross, with tax and national insurance to be accounted for by him.