Claimant v Why Wouldn't You Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The preliminary hearing determined employment status only. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee/worker during each typing assignment between 31 January 2022 and 30 January 2024, but was not an employee under a global contract. The substantive constructive dismissal claim was not heard and remains to be determined at a future hearing.
The claimant ticked the box for holiday pay claims in her ET1 but did not particularise the legal or factual basis. The tribunal determined she had worker status during individual assignments, which would give her the right to bring such claims under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The substantive claim remains to be determined.
The claimant ticked boxes for 'arrears of pay' and 'other payments' but did not provide particulars. The tribunal found she had worker status during each assignment, enabling her to bring unauthorised deduction claims under ERA sections 13 and 23. The substantive claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Ms Walshe worked as a home-based audio typist for Why Wouldn't You Ltd from July 2020 to January 2024, typing dictation from the respondent's surveying clients. She was engaged under terms stating she was self-employed, paid per minute of dictation (£0.40-£0.50), and invoiced monthly minus a £25 software licence fee. She worked on a rota system, logging on at scheduled times, with the respondent allocating jobs, auditing her work, providing training, specifying equipment, and setting pay rates. She worked exclusively for the respondent and had no ability to substitute herself with another typist, though the respondent could reallocate work within its pre-approved pool of typists.
Decision
The tribunal found that Ms Walshe was not an employee or worker under a global/umbrella contract due to lack of mutuality of obligation between assignments. However, during each individual typing assignment, she was both a limb (a) employee and a limb (b) worker. The tribunal concluded that the respondent exercised sufficient control over her work, she provided personal services within the respondent's business framework, and the respondent was not a client or customer of an independent business undertaking. The claim can now proceed to a full merits hearing on the constructive dismissal and pay claims.
Practical note
Gig economy and assignment-based workers can be employees/workers during each assignment even without a global contract, where the engager exercises day-to-day control, sets rates, provides systems and training, and the worker provides personal services exclusively within the engager's business framework rather than operating their own independent business.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303622/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Audio Typist
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No