Case 3202510/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cebotari v Flexwood Windows Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202510/2019
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Cebotari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a preliminary issue of the claimant's employment status. The claimant had brought claims arising from the ending of his relationship with the respondent on 31 May 2019, but the hearing was limited to whether he was an employee, worker, or self-employed contractor.
The tribunal found that the contractual arrangements with NPS and ATL did not reflect the reality of the working relationship. It found that the claimant was required to provide personal service, that the respondent exercised control over when, where, and how he worked, that there was mutuality of obligation, and that he was integrated into the respondent's business.
The tribunal concluded that it was necessary to imply a contract with the respondent as end-user and that the implied relationship was a contract of employment. The judgment therefore held that the claimant was an employee and could pursue an unfair dismissal claim; it did not decide the substantive claims or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment was a preliminary hearing on status only. The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee and therefore could pursue an unfair dismissal claim; it did not determine the merits of unfair dismissal or award compensation. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant sought notice pay, but the preliminary hearing determined status only and did not adjudicate the notice pay claim. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant sought holiday pay, but the preliminary hearing determined status only and did not adjudicate the holiday pay claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant sought arrears of pay, but the preliminary hearing determined status only and did not adjudicate the arrears claim. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant sought a redundancy payment, but the preliminary hearing determined status only and did not adjudicate the redundancy payment claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- irreducible minimum
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.