Ahmed v Wincaton Group Ltd

Whether a person is an employee cannot be determined solely from contractual wording which denies an employment relationship or mutual obligations. The tribunal must determine the parties’ true agreement. It must analyse the written terms as a whole, how the relationship operated in practice, and whether contractual possibilities such as refusing work genuinely reflected reality.

A tribunal errs where it reaches an employment-status conclusion without sufficient factual findings and contractual analysis. Where those deficiencies prevent a proper appellate determination, the issue should be remitted for a fresh hearing.

The claimant worked as an operative under written terms headed as a labour-management contract. The terms stated that they did not create a contract of employment, but also stated that a worker accepting an assignment would be deemed an employee during that assignment. They contained provisions concerning hours, holidays, sickness, pension, grievance, discipline and termination.

The Bedford Employment Tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act and dismissed his unfair-dismissal claim. It made limited findings about the practical operation of the arrangement and did not consider [2011] UKSC 41. The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had properly determined his employment status.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal had erred in deciding that the claimant was not an employee without a proper analysis of the contractual relationship and its practical operation.
2. The governing inquiry, stated in Autoclenz, is the parties’ true agreement. A tribunal must not treat clauses denying employment status, an obligation to offer work, or an obligation to accept work as conclusive merely because they appear in writing. It must decide whether such terms genuinely reflect the relationship in reality.
3. The Tribunal relied substantially on the opening words of the written agreement. It made very limited factual findings and did not analyse the remaining terms, which included provisions capable of bearing on employment status. It also failed to establish the nature and duration of an accepted “assignment”, despite the agreement stating that the worker would be deemed an employee during it.
4. The Tribunal had not been referred to [2011] UKSC 41. Its reasoning that the claimant could simply have declined future work did not amount to the required factual inquiry into whether that was a realistic contractual possibility in practice.
5. The Appeal Tribunal could not itself determine status. Full and clear findings were required before a conclusion could be substituted. The unfair-dismissal claim was remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal to be reconsidered from the beginning.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal and remitted the unfair-dismissal claim for a fresh determination.
• Employment Tribunal, Bedford: By a decision sent to the parties on 22 November 2012, held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act and dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim.