Mr Otchie (Counsel) For the v Mr Spiro (Lay representative and owner of respondent) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2019, Employment Judge Webster considered the claimant's employment status in relation to her PA and secretarial work for Unique Associates Limited, trading as Threshold Surveyors. The tribunal found that the parties had worked together without a written contract, that the claimant had provided general PA and secretarial services from around 1992 and more regularly from around September 2009, and that she usually worked three days a week in the respondent's office. The judgment records that the claimant's disability discrimination claims had been withdrawn and were accordingly dismissed.

Applying s.230 ERA 1996 and the Ready Mixed Concrete approach, the tribunal found that the claimant provided personal service, was subject to sufficient control, and worked under arrangements that were consistent with a contract of employment. It accepted that she could arrange limited cover only through the other PA, Ms White, that the respondent expected her to attend the office on her normal working days, and that the remote typists were not a genuine substitute for her role because office presence, telephone answering and diary management were central features of the work. The tribunal also found that the 'follow the chair' system meant the respondent directed the work to be done and its order.

The tribunal further held that mutuality of obligation existed because the respondent regularly provided work, expected the claimant to perform it on her agreed days, and paid her by a regular monthly invoicing arrangement based on 91 hours with a bank-hours system. It concluded that the invoicing and the claimant's responsibility for tax and NI did not outweigh the reality of the relationship, which was that she had no commercial risk and was effectively paid a regular salary. On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee; alternatively, if wrong on employee status, she was at least a worker because she undertook to perform the services personally and the respondent was not her client or customer. The judgment therefore held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the remaining claims and that the matter should proceed to a full merits hearing.