Mr J Headon v ZCO Ltd — 2024

The claimant’s claim form sought payment for accrued holiday and a redundancy payment. At the hearing he said he did not regard himself as an employee, only a worker, and on that basis the redundancy payment claim was withdrawn. The first respondent applied to join Potent Solutions Ltd as the correct engaging entity, and the tribunal joined it as the second respondent. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr J Headon and Mr Yunus Bobat, found Mr Headon to be an entirely credible and reliable witness, and accepted that he had been engaged as a post office assistant from 2015 until August 2023, with fixed hours, no written contract, self-employed tax treatment, no holiday pay or sick pay, and no ability to provide a substitute.

Applying section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Uber & Others v Aslam & Others, Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd, Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith and Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird, the tribunal found there was a contract, that the claimant was required to perform the work personally, and that the arrangement did not fall within the business-undertaking exception. It held that the claimant was a worker throughout the material period. On that basis, his holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s quantification, which Mr Turpin accepted on behalf of the respondents, and awarded £3,024 gross, with the second respondent liable to pay and either party to account to HMRC for any tax or national insurance due.