In person. For the v Respondent — 2017

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue on 25 November 2019 before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone. The issue was whether the claimant, Mr L Freeman, was an employee of David Lloyd Leisure Limited so as to give the tribunal jurisdiction over his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal applied the section 230 ERA 1996 definition of employee and the familiar multi-factor approach, including the guidance in Ready-mixed Concrete and Hall v Lorimer.

The tribunal found that the relationship was not intended to be one of employment. It accepted that from 2003 the claimant, a professional photographer and club member, had an arrangement on a quid pro quo basis under which he took photographs for the club as and when required in return for complimentary membership. The tribunal found that neither side regarded him as an employee, and that he was instead a member who provided photographs on an ad hoc basis.

On control and integration, the tribunal found the claimant was not integrated into the respondent's organisation. He had no uniform, company email address, employee board listing, staff card, line manager, wage payment, tax or National Insurance deductions, or pension membership. It found he supplied his own equipment, set his own hours, arranged appointments in his own time, and could take holidays without asking permission. The tribunal also found there was insufficient control and no mutuality of obligation sufficient to create a contract of employment.

The tribunal concluded, standing back and considering the relationship as a whole, that there was no contract of service and therefore no employee status for the purposes of section 230(1) ERA 1996. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. Ms Hatch applied for costs, but the tribunal refused the application, holding that the claimant had not acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings.