Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird: EAT 18 Sep 2001

EAT The Tribunal was asked whether the claimant was a worker within the meaning of the Regulations and so entitled to their protection in receiving holiday pay.
Held: The appropriate classification of a contract the subject of such a question will in every case depend upon a careful analysis of all the elements of the relationship.
Recorder Underhill QC said: ‘The intention behind the regulation is plainly to create an intermediate class of protected worker, who is on the one hand not an employee but on the other hand cannot in some narrower sense be regarded as carrying on a business . . It is sometimes said that the effect of the exception is that the 1998 Regulations do not extend to the ‘genuinely self-employed’; but that is not a particularly helpful formulation since it is unclear how ‘genuine’ self-employment is to be defined.’ He continued, saying that the degree of independence is critical: ‘[T]he policy behind the inclusion of limb (b) . . can only have been to extend the benefits of protection to workers who are in the same need of that type of protection as employees stricto sensu – workers, that is, who are viewed as liable, whatever their formal employment status, to be required to work excessive hours (or, in the cases of Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, to suffer unlawful deductions from their earnings or to be paid too little). The reason why employees are thought to need such protection is that they are in a subordinate and dependent position vis-a-vis their employers: the purpose of the Regulations is to extend protection to workers who are, substantively and economically, in the same position. Thus the essence of the intended distinction must be between, on the one hand, workers whose degree of dependence is essentially the same as that of employees and, on the other, contractors who have a sufficiently arm’s-length and independent position to be treated as being able to look after themselves in the relevant respects.’
Mr Recorder Underhill QC
EAT/542/01, [2001] UKEAT 542 – 01 – 1809, [2002] IRLR 96, [2002] ICR 667, [2002] Emp LR 567
Bailii, EATn
Working Time Regulations 1998 16, Employment Rights Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJivraj v Hashwani SC 27-Jul-2011
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 . .
CitedClyde and Co Llp v Van Winkelhof EAT 26-Apr-2012
Worker, employee or neither
Working outside the jurisdiction
Whether LLP equity member was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3). Allowing Claimant’s appeal, she was. . .
CitedClyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof CA 26-Sep-2012
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy . .
CitedClyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof SC 21-May-2014
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker
The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found . .
CitedUber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors were as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
CitedPimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith SC 13-Jun-2018
The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary.
Held: The company’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.168314