Mrs Y Subramanian Babu v Slough Children’s Services Trust — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether Mrs Y Subramanian Babu was an employee, a worker, or a self-employed contractor for her engagement with Slough Children’s Services Trust. The tribunal applied section 230(1) and section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and cited Ready Mixed Concrete, Catamaran Cruisers and Hall v Lorimer, treating the question as one of overall evaluation of the facts rather than a checklist exercise.

The tribunal found that the claimant had set up Aidkeira Limited to provide her services and had done so on her own initiative after advice from other social workers. It accepted that there were features pointing both ways: she worked in a regulated social work role, used the respondent’s laptop, received mandatory training, attended supervision, and worked hours similar to employees, but she also operated through her company, submitted invoices, did not receive registration fee support, and had consciously adopted an arrangement that avoided giving notice.

On balance, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee because the factors pointing to self-employment outweighed those pointing to employment, including the parties’ conscious decision to proceed through the company model and the absence of a notice period. It nevertheless held that she was a worker because there was a contract for personal services for the respondent’s benefit, the respondent was not her client or customer, and the evidence did not show that she held herself out as an independent business providing services to others while engaged by the respondent.