Claimant v Intsol Recruitment Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant at the outset of the hearing. Claimant had not intended to pursue this claim and wished instead to pursue claims for unpaid wages.
Withdrawn by claimant at the outset of the hearing. Claimant had not intended to pursue this claim and wished instead to pursue claims for unpaid wages.
Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims by workers, only employees whose employment has terminated.
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker of the respondent until 23 March 2024. This claim can proceed to a final hearing. The tribunal did not determine at this preliminary hearing whether the claimant was actually entitled to guaranteed hours/pay as claimed.
Facts
The claimant, a bus driver, applied to work for the respondent recruitment agency in December 2021. He signed contracts with an umbrella company (Max Your Pay Ltd) which purported to employ him for payroll purposes. From January 2022 to December 2023, he worked exclusively for the respondent's client, First Bus, in Bristol. He claimed the respondent guaranteed him 50 hours' paid work per week. The First Bus assignment ended on 23 December 2023. The claimant claimed he was owed unpaid wages based on guaranteed hours.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent due to lack of mutuality of obligation and control. However, he was a worker until 23 March 2024. The umbrella company arrangement was merely a payment mechanism. The breach of contract claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (not an employee). The unlawful deduction from wages claim can proceed to a final hearing to determine whether the claimant was actually entitled to guaranteed hours/pay.
Practical note
An agency worker placed on a long-term assignment through an umbrella company payroll arrangement may be a 'worker' of the agency for statutory rights purposes, even if not an 'employee', where the umbrella arrangement is merely a payment mechanism and the reality is that they provided personal service to the agency.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000403/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- PCV driver
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- lay rep