EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The Claimant (who was a dentist) entered into a contract to provide dental services for the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that provision. The Respondent appeals.
Held (allowing the appeal):-
The Claimant was not a ‘worker’ as he did not ‘undertake to do or perform personally any work or services’ as required by section 230(3) because there was no obligation on the Claimant to do work as he could delegate his duties.
Dicta in Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird and Others [2002] IRLR 96[25]; James v Redcats (Brands) Limited [2007] IRLR 296[78]; Express and Echo Publications Limited v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367[31]; Jorzca v Premier Groundworks [2009] All ER (D) 22 [25] and Archer-Hoblin Contractors v MacGettigal [2009] UKEAT/0037/09/0307 [43] applied.
Dicta in Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Limited v Buckborough [2009] IRLR 34[56] not followed.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0532 – 09 – 1208
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)
Employment
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421515
