Claimant v H.A. Boulton (Flooring) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, not an employee. Unfair dismissal claims require employee status under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed the claim as it lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
Redundancy pay claims require employee status. Having determined the claimant was a worker but not an employee, the tribunal dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it, likely due to the claimant's worker rather than employee status.
The tribunal determined the claimant was a worker, which gives access to unlawful deduction of wages claims. The preliminary hearing decided employment status only; this claim was not dismissed and remains to be determined at a full hearing.
As a worker, the claimant is entitled to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations. This claim survives the preliminary hearing and will be determined at a full merits hearing.
Facts
Mr Holmes worked as a screeder for the respondent flooring company from 2007-2012 as an employee, was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2012, then returned in April 2013 on what both parties agreed was initially a self-employed basis. He worked regularly for the respondent doing screeding work until January 2024 when the respondent wound down its business. He was paid under the Construction Industry Scheme, registered as self-employed for tax purposes, negotiated rates for individual jobs, could turn down work, hired his own screeding pump operators, provided his own tools, and had no guaranteed work or pay. However, he had to perform work personally, wore the respondent's branded clothing, received training, and worked as part of the respondent's business delivering services to end clients.
Decision
The tribunal found Mr Holmes was a worker but not an employee from April 2013 to January 2024. There was no mutuality of obligation as the respondent did not have to offer work and Mr Holmes could refuse jobs. However, he provided personal services as part of the respondent's business to end clients, and the respondent exercised sufficient control through health and safety requirements and end-client specifications. Claims requiring employee status (unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, breach of contract) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but worker claims such as holiday pay can proceed.
Practical note
Self-employed tax status and Construction Industry Scheme payment do not prevent worker status where the individual provides personal services integrated into another's business rather than operating as an independent contractor with clients or customers.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401328/2024
- Decision date
- 29 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Screeder
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister