• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Who is an employee? The latest position

31st October 2011

The question of who is an employee is one of the most fundamental issues in employment law.  Most employment rights, such as the right to minimum notice, the right to the National Minimum Wage, the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to redundancy pay all require employment status.  It is therefore important for both companies and workers to understand their status at the outset of the relationship.  The Employment Rights Act has a very circular definition of who is an employee – defining an employee as a person who works under a contract of employment.  Many years ago in the Court of Appeal legendary judge Lord Denning said that he would recognise an employee when he saw one, but he didn’t give us much guidance on how this should be done!

There have been a couple of recent important cases on this question, but they probably make the answer to the question less certain than it was before they were decided!

The first of these cases is the recent Supreme Court decision of Autoclenz v Belcher.  In this case Autoclenz provided a car valeting service to British Car Auctions.  Its agreements with the valeters described the valeters as self employed.  Those agreements stated that there was no obligation on Autoclenz to provide the valeters with any work, and if Autoclenz did offer them work, there was no obligation on them to perform it.  The agreements also gave the valeters the right, if they wished, send a substitute to perform their role.  Both the lack of ‘mutuality of obligation’, and the ability to provide a substitute were pointers toward the valeters being self employed. 

Indeed, in 2000, the House of Lords in the case of Carmichael v National Power  held that personal service was a prerequisite to employment status, and that if a worker was able to send a substitute to perform their role, they could not be an employee.  Their Lordships also held that where there was no mutuality of obligation, then again there could not be an employment relationship.  However, since the decision in Carmichael, there have been cases where the tribunals have found that the arrangements set out in the documentation have in fact been a sham, and as such the agreement was not enforceable.  This has been a difficult argument for workers to run, because in law a sham is where “all the parties to the agreement have a common intention that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and documents which give the appearance of creating.”  Given the inequality of bargaining power between the parties, it has in practice been very hard for workers to establish that there was the required common intent by all the parties.

In Autoclenz, the Supreme Court rejected the “sham” test and said that when  determining an individual’s status, employment tribunals and courts will be able to set aside express contractual terms which are inconsistent with the reality of the relationship of the parties, without the need for a common intention to mislead.  Contractual terms which suggest self-employment (such as substitution clauses and clauses purporting to allow the individual to refuse work) will be disregarded if they do not reflect the actual legal obligations of the parties.  The Supreme Court said that one of the ways of doing this is to look at what the parties do in practice.  In other words, did the company always provide work?  If so, did the worker always do it?  Did the worker ever provide a substitute? 

There are two main difficulties with this approach.  First, how do you assess the legal obligations at the outset?  At that stage all you will have is the documentation, and if that makes it clear that the worker is self employed, then it is likely that will be conclusive.  If after (say) two years, the worker has never provided a substitute, does their status change to one of employment?  If it does, when did that change occur?  In addition, is it right that just because someone does not use a right they have (for example to provide a substitute), then they should lose it?  Certainly, if an employee had a right to take 6 weeks’ holiday each year, but chose for say three years to only take five weeks, there would be no suggestion that they had lost their right to take six weeks’ holiday going forward.

The decision in Autoclenz  certainly makes it harder for companies to set up arrangements with workers on a self employed basis.  This uncertainty is not really in the interest of either  party – for the company, there is a risk that they may face claims for redundancy etc on the termination of the agreement, and for the workers there is the risk that if they are found to be employees then they may face arrears of tax and National Insurance.  However, even that is not certain; just because HMRC decide someone is self employed, the employment tribunals are not bound to reach the same conclusion.  This is exactly what happened in Autoclenz where HMRC had accepted the self employed status of the workers some years earlier.

The second recent decision is the case of Johnson-Caswell v MJB (Partnership) Limited.  In this case an employment tribunal held that an independent financial adviser (IFA) who was purportedly self-employed was in fact an employee. In the tribunal’s view, a key element pointing to employment status was the need to comply with Financial Service Authority (FSA) requirements. The tribunal considered that the training and supervision obligations that this involved amounted to a sufficient element of control by the company over the IFA’s work.  The degree of control a company has over a worker has long been one of the tests of employment status, but the degree of control an employer has over a senior employee is perhaps not that great – for example, an NHS Trust will not tell a surgeon which bits of a patient to remove, or how to remove them!  However, what is unusual in the Johnson-Caswell  case is that the high degree of control which was exercised was as a result of obligations imposed by the FSA.  Notwithstanding this, and the fact that Mr Johnson-Caswell had a large element of discretion over how he worked on a day to day basis, the tribunal found that this did not detract from MJB’s significant degree of control.

 Both these cases will make it harder for companies to contract with people on a self employed basis and have any confidence that the arrangements cannot be successfully challenged.  There are still steps which can be taken to minimise the risks by careful drafting, and this is something which Pure Employment Law can help with.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected])

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice.  The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario. 
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2011-10-31 00:41:342014-12-03 15:58:18Who is an employee? The latest position

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Discrimination found in gender critical belief case 27th July 2022
  • Court of Appeal overturns Tesco fire and rehire injunction 27th July 2022
  • Changes to fit notes 27th July 2022
  • Where are we with the fire and rehire Code of Practice? 27th July 2022
  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only