Ms Farrow – represented herself Mrs Harnwell resented by Mr R Harnwell, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2022

Mrs L Farrow and Mrs J Harnwell each brought unlawful deduction from wages claims arising from cancelled examination work during the coronavirus pandemic. The tribunal found that both claimants had worked for Chesterton Community College from time to time as examination invigilators, and in Ms Farrow’s case also on exam preparation and administration. The tribunal accepted that the college had sent lists of proposed slots in March 2020, used language such as “carved in stone,” and then cancelled the examinations after the GCSEs were cancelled on 18 March 2020.

The central issue was whether the claimants were employees or casual workers with a contractual entitlement to be paid for the cancelled sessions. The tribunal held that neither claimant was a permanent employee throughout the periods between assignments. It found there was no obligation on the respondent to offer work and no obligation on either claimant to accept it. The work was arranged from time to time depending on need and availability, and each claimant was to be paid for the work actually carried out.

The tribunal found that the references to dates being “carved in stone” reflected an expectation that agreed work would not be withdrawn without good cause, rather than a promise of payment for work not done. It also noted that extra invigilators were booked as insurance against short-notice unavailability. The tribunal accepted the claimants’ evidence that if they were unavailable for a booked slot they would not be paid, and found that the sums claimed were not properly quantified because the claimants had assumed they would earn approximately the same as in the previous year without a tested calculation.

Applying the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the claimants were casual workers within limb B of s.230(3), that they were entitled only to the agreed rates for work actually performed, and that there was no legal obligation to pay for cancelled examinations. It noted that the claimants had been paid in full for all work they did, including rearranged examinations, and that external guidance on furlough or paying casual staff was not a statement of law. The claims were therefore dismissed; the reasons section also states that the complaints failed and were struck out.