Ms Bewley, counsel For the v Mr Williams, solicitor — 2020

The claimant, a dentist, brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Smile Clinic Group Holdings Limited and Staffa Lodge Dental Group Limited. The hearing was listed as an open preliminary hearing to decide whether she was a worker within s.230 ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the standard associate contract (SAC) governed the relationship from the start of the working arrangement, even though it was sent later, and that the claimant was bound by clause 7 dealing with locums and by schedule 6.

On the facts found, the claimant could choose her working hours within the practice opening times, took holidays without any stated contractual holiday limit, worked from both clinics on different arrangements, and had complete clinical independence. However, the tribunal held that the contract also gave her an obligation to appoint a locum after specified periods of absence and a right at any time to appoint a locum reasonably acceptable to the provider or assign the agreement to another dentist of equivalent experience. Applying the s.230 ERA authorities cited, including Bates van Winkelhof, Uber and Pimlico Plumbers, the tribunal concluded that there was no personal obligation to perform the work because the substitution arrangements were real and not merely theoretical.

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not a worker and dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages claim. It also said that, even if personal service had been established, it was not persuaded that the respondents were not the claimant’s clients or customers. In reaching that view it relied on the claimant’s ability to work for another practice, the separate contracts with each respondent, the contractual provisions about training, laboratory bills and assignment, and the financial risk and commercial structure of the arrangement.