Claimant v Ms C Richardson t/a Injeanious Hair and Beauty
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker within the meaning of reg 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for the period January 2018 to 14 April 2021. However, for the period after 14 April 2021, the claimant was found to be a worker and the holiday pay claim under regulation 30 succeeded.
The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of her duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars, awarding the statutory compensation for this failure.
Facts
The claimant worked at the respondent's hair and beauty business from January 2018. The key issue was whether she qualified as a 'worker' under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claimant claimed holiday pay for the entire period of her engagement and also claimed the respondent had failed to provide written employment particulars.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker from January 2018 to 14 April 2021, but was a worker after that date. The holiday pay claim succeeded for the period after 14 April 2021, awarding £699.20. The tribunal also found the respondent breached the duty to provide written employment particulars and awarded £304 compensation.
Practical note
Worker status under the Working Time Regulations can change over time depending on the nature of the working relationship, and tribunals will examine different periods separately when determining entitlement to holiday pay.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1404025/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep