Mr R Mitchell v Represented by: Ms C Thomson - Solicitor A.D.Taxis Ltd — 2020

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue on 25 September 2019 and 20 January 2020 about whether Mr R Mitchell worked for AD Taxis Ltd as an employee, a worker, or a self-employed contractor. It found that he worked as a taxi driver from 5 December 2016 to 16 April 2019, that there was no written contract, and that the parties had agreed he would be self-employed, deal with his own tax affairs, and receive no holiday pay or sick pay.

On control, the tribunal accepted that the respondent exercised some control over shift allocation, but it held that this was not enough to make the relationship one of employment. The fixed shift pattern was a practical consequence of the respondent owning the vehicles, the geographical limits came from the claimant's taxi licence, and the locations where he waited for fares were matters of commercial common sense rather than instructions from the respondent. It also found that the respondent did not require a set amount of work from the claimant and that he was permitted to refuse a fare for a good reason or to finish his shift early.

On personal service, the tribunal found that the claimant could send a substitute driver, without seeking the respondent's permission, provided the substitute held a suitable South Lanarkshire Council taxi licence. On mutuality of obligation, it found that neither side was under a sufficiently clear legal obligation to offer or accept work, and that the arrangements for pay, holiday pay, sick pay, tips, tax, licence costs, and the claimant's separate arrangement with Muirpark Taxis were all consistent with self-employment. It also accepted that complaints about the claimant were directed to the licensing authority rather than dealt with under any disciplinary process.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Windle, and Pimlico Plumbers, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee. It further accepted that there was a contract between the parties and that the respondent was not the claimant's customer or client, but held that the absence of mutuality of obligation and personal service was fatal to worker status. The judgment therefore concluded that Mr Mitchell was a self-employed contractor, and the claims for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, written statement of terms, holiday pay, and rest breaks could not succeed.