Mr D Taylor v Doosan Power Systems SA — 2024

The claimant, Mr D Taylor, had been employed by Doosan Babcock Limited from 24 October 2011 until 31 December 2022. From around 2017 he also carried out a range of annual and ad hoc HR work for the respondent, Doosan Power Systems SA, at the instruction of Sukjoo Kang, but the tribunal accepted that this work sat alongside, and did not replace, his continuing employment with DBL. In May 2021 Mr Taylor and the respondent entered into a Transaction Bonus Agreement to incentivise him to assist with the proposed sale of DBL. The sale completed on 25 September 2022 and he was paid a gross transaction bonus of £123,585 on 22 September 2022, but he claimed that he had been short paid and sought £67,354.

On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that any alleged breach of the TBA could only have arisen when the bonus entitlement crystallised, which was 24 November 2022, 60 days after completion of the sale. It found that Mr Taylor was not an employee of the respondent at that date because there was no ongoing mutuality of obligation between him and the respondent after 25 September 2022, and no evidence that the respondent remained obliged to offer work or pay him, or that he remained obliged to accept or perform work for it. The tribunal therefore dismissed the breach of contract claim for want of jurisdiction.

On the wages claim, the tribunal held that Mr Taylor was not a worker of the respondent for the purposes of the bonus claimed under the TBA. It accepted that the work incentivised by the TBA consisted of duties Mr Taylor was already required to perform for DBL as part of his employment there, including sale-related management work, and it did not consider that the TBA extended any pre-existing worker arrangement with the respondent or created a new one. The tribunal relied on the general principle against dual employment or worker status in respect of the same work, and concluded that the bonus was an additional incentive over and above Mr Taylor’s remuneration from DBL rather than wages payable in connection with employment by the respondent. The wages complaint was therefore also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.