EAT (Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke) JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant was an interpreter, who from 2007 provided services directly to Police and Courts. Then the authorities engaged interpreters through intermediaries – initially ALS, then Capita. The Claimant had no contract with the end-users of her services. She claimed holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’), but in each case had to show she was a relevant worker (WTR) or ’employee’ (EqA). An Employment Tribunal held that she was a professional, who provided services to Capita, and so was excluded from being a worker and could not claim under the EqA. She appealed on two bases which had not been advanced below – first that Capita was not a client of hers, and second that she could claim under section 55 EqA (which governed the actions of employment service providers). In both cases, the Employment Appeal Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to allow her to appeal: but in each case also dismissed the appeals on their merits. As to the first ground, the issue was one of fact, and there was sufficient material to entitle the Employment Tribunal to decide that Capita (and before it ALS) were professional clients of the Claimant; as to the second, though acknowledging it was obiter, that section 55 did not on a proper construction appear to permit the claim as it had been advanced. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2015] UKEAT 0086 – 15 – 2407
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577862
