Ms Czepiel, lay representative. For the v Mr Corbon, solicitor — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on employment status. The claimant said he had worked for MM Tech Electrical Ltd as an electrician and sought a determination of his status. The tribunal found there was no written contract. It accepted that the claimant answered an advert, had a telephone interview, and then worked under an oral arrangement for a daily rate that rose from £150 to £160 and then £170. The claimant worked mainly on construction sites, was told where and when to attend by text, signed in on site, and reported to respondent supervisors who assigned his daily tasks.

The tribunal found that the claimant had to provide personal service. There was no right to send a substitute or hire assistance, and the tribunal rejected the suggestion that this was justified only by site health and safety. It also found significant control by the respondent over the claimant's hours, attendance, breaks, and allocation of work. The claimant generally worked 7.30am to 4.30pm, had to explain lateness or leaving early, and received a daily rate rather than quoting for jobs or issuing invoices. Heavy tools and materials were provided by others, and the claimant did not run a separate business undertaking in his own account.

Although the claimant had regarded himself as self-employed, paid an accountant, and was paid through CIS deductions, the tribunal held that these factors were outweighed by the practical reality of the relationship. It relied on the absence of quoting, invoicing, and substitute rights, the continuity of work from January 2018 to February 2019 apart from agreed holidays, the degree of supervision, and the evidence that the claimant was told he could not work for other electrical firms on the same sites for six weeks after finishing on a site.

Applying the authorities it cited, including the Ready Mixed Concrete multiple test, Pimlico Plumbers on personal service, and the worker definition in section 230(3)(b), the tribunal held that the claimant was a worker because he personally performed work under an oral contract and the respondent was not a client or customer of a business carried on by him. It did not find sufficient mutuality of obligation between separate jobs to conclude that he was also an employee within section 230(1). No monetary remedy was awarded at this preliminary stage.