Mr F Mulvaney v Airdrie Taxis Limited — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing, held remotely on 5 January 2023, on the single issue of employment status. The claimant, Mr F Mulvaney, was a taxi owner and shareholder of Airdrie Taxis Limited. He confirmed that he was pursuing unfair dismissal only; although the claim form had ticked notice pay and holiday pay, he said he did not pursue those claims. The tribunal therefore asked whether he was an employee for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal accepted that there was a contract between the parties in the form of the minute of agreement and the later working rules and conditions, general rules and discipline rules. It found, however, that the claimant was entitled in practice to provide a substitute driver and that there was no obligation on him to provide work personally. It also found there was no mutuality of obligations, because the claimant chose his hours, could work as few or as many hours as he wanted, and was not obliged to undertake work at all.

The tribunal accepted that there was control over how drivers operated when on shift, including rules on sign-on and sign-off, uniforms, discounts, location reporting, refusals of hires, and disciplinary procedures. It held that those controls related to conduct when the claimant was actually working and did not make him an employee overall. It also noted that he supplied his own vehicle and equipment, bore the financial risk of his work, paid his own tax and national insurance, and that the parties intended the arrangement to be self-employed.

Applying the multiple-factor approach in Ready Mixed Concrete, and referring to authorities including Knight v Fairway & Kenwood Car Servies Ltd and Mingeley v Pennock & Ivory, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment but was engaged under a contract for services. As a result, he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim and the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.