Mr R Gull v Gmb — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Gull was an employee for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, and on the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Gull and Mr Warr and had limited contemporaneous documents. It held that Mr Gull was an employee for both statutes.

The tribunal found that Mr Gull had been engaged by GMB in 2005 to do branch-related representation work for a regular monthly payment of £2,100, with no mention at that stage of a branch-secretary office. It accepted that he worked full-time or close to full-time, represented members in disciplinary and related meetings, and that GMB referred work to him. Although he had practical autonomy and could arrange cover when unavailable, the tribunal held that this did not amount to a contractual right of substitution. It also found that later branch-secretary appointments and honoraria were an adjunct to the existing arrangement rather than a replacement for it.

Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, the multiple test, and the officeholder authorities in Percy and Bickerton, the tribunal concluded that the overall picture pointed to employment despite the officeholder label and the limited integration into GMB's wider operations. It relied on the regularity of payment, the expectation that Mr Gull would carry out the work assigned to him, compliance with instructions on accounts and branch plans, PAYE and pension treatment, and the fact that the office appointments were not temporary and did not follow the rulebook mechanism. It also said that the employee-status issue was significant because the claims depended on that status, but it did not determine the substantive merits of those claims. The age discrimination claim also survived the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications because the factual dispute about why the honorarium position changed had to be resolved at a full hearing. No remedy was determined in this judgment.