Case 6006524/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Miroslaw Skiepko v JBP Foods Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006524/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Miroslaw Skiepko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held on 12 February 2025 before Employment Judge McCooey to determine whether the claimant was an employee, a worker, or a self-employed contractor for the purposes of establishing tribunal jurisdiction over his claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay. The respondent's position was that the claimant had been engaged on a self-employed basis from July 2020, a label the claimant had verbally accepted at interview and used himself in his ET1 form. The respondent's director, Mr Zajac, did not attend to give oral evidence, having had an adjournment application refused, so where there was a factual conflict the judge preferred the claimant's oral evidence given under oath.
The Tribunal found that, despite the 'self-employed' label, the practical reality of the working relationship was that of employment. The respondent provided the tools of the role (catalogue, leaflets, scanner, company car with GPS monitoring), set the customers and geographical locations the claimant was required to attend, imposed unwritten 'policies' on commission levels and payment arrangements, and challenged the claimant on his hours and routes. The judge accepted the claimant's evidence that when he sought to assert autonomy on the basis of his purported self-employed status he was forcefully challenged and ultimately threatened with dismissal, and that there was no genuine right of substitution. Factors pointing the other way — responsibility for his own tax, use of an accountant, commission-based variable pay, and his own use of the self-employed label — were considered but were outweighed by the level of control exercised by the respondent.
The Tribunal concluded that by at least the end of 2022 the respondent was exercising a level of control consistent with an employer/employee relationship, and that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. It followed that he was also a worker. Accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims at the final hearing listed for 15, 16 and 17 October 2025, with a first case management hearing on 22 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on employment status only. The Tribunal determined the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s.230 ERA 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim will proceed to the final hearing listed for 15-17 October 2025. The substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim have not yet been adjudicated. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary hearing on employment status only. The Tribunal determined the claimant was an employee (and therefore also a worker per Ajar-Tec Ltd v Stack), so the holiday pay claim will proceed to the final hearing. The substantive merits have not yet been adjudicated. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ajar-Tec Ltd v Stack [2012] EWCA Civ 543
- Rule 62(3) of the Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.