In person (with the assistance of Ms Jefs, his sister) For the v Mr Bhagat Singh Lotay (director) — 2021

The tribunal first dealt with the Claimant’s attempt to broaden the case beyond unlawful deductions. Although the hearing initially proceeded on the basis that there might also be an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, the tribunal held that no such claim had been properly pleaded in the ET1. Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore and the associated authorities, it refused permission to amend because the proposed claim was a new and substantially different head of claim, it was out of time, there was no good reason for the delay, and the Respondent would have faced different factual issues.

The tribunal then found that the Claimant was a worker for the purposes of s.230(3) ERA 1996. It accepted his evidence that he had been engaged from 29 June 2020 to 22 July 2020 as a Production Manager/Cabinet Maker, working alongside other carpenters under Mr Lotay’s management. The tribunal preferred the Claimant’s account over Mr Lotay’s evidence, noting the absence of any written contract, the daily task list, the instructions about breaks, the Claimant’s use of some of the Respondent’s machinery, and the fact that he had responded to a job advert rather than acting as an independent business with clients or customers. The tribunal referred to the integration test in Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams.

On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence of the hours worked and found that Mr Lotay was unable to challenge the figures because he did not monitor the Claimant’s hours. It was also agreed that the Claimant had received no payment for that work and had not authorised any deductions. The tribunal therefore held that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to Part II and s.13 ERA 1996, with £3,165 net outstanding and ordered to be paid.