Mr A Catt v English Table Tennis Association Limited (and Others) — 2021

At this open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal first decided whether Mr A Catt was a "worker" for the purposes of his whistleblowing detriment claims under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The extended definition in section 43K did not apply. The only issue was whether he fell within section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, because the parties agreed he did not work under a contract of employment. The Respondent was amended to English Table Tennis Association Limited.

The Tribunal found that Mr Catt had been elected as one of the First Respondent's non-executive directors and that the role description described the position as "voluntary" with an honorarium of £1,500 per year, paid monthly at £125. He was not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay, or pension benefits, was not subject to the Respondent's employment contracts or staff handbook, could resign without notice, and had no substitute arrangement. The Tribunal found that he was independent of the Chair and CEO, was not in a subordinate position, and was free to express his own views and decide whether to attend meetings or training.

Although payslips described him as an "employee" and gave him an employee number, the Tribunal held that labels were not determinative. Applying the approach in Uber, Gilham, Byrne Bros and Somerville, the judge concluded that the key question was whether there was a contract under which Mr Catt undertook to perform work or services personally for the Respondent. The Tribunal found that, looking at the true agreement and the surrounding circumstances, there was insufficient subordination or dependency to make him a worker.

Because Mr Catt was not a worker within section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear his claims and dismissed them.