In the case of Ms Dewhurst v Citysprint UK Ltd, Ms Dewhurst argued that she was a worker rather than a self-employed contractor and brought a claim against Citysprint UK Ltd for holiday pay. The employment tribunal has upheld her claim and found that she was in fact a worker during the time she was on circuit.
Ms Dewhurst worked as a cycle courier for Citysprint. Evidence in the employment tribunal hearing found that if couriers get through the recruitment process then they are issued with a ‘Confirmation of Tender to Supply Courier Services’ in which Ms Dewhurst was referred to as a ‘contractor’ and within which it stated she was ‘self-employed’ and neither a worker nor an employee. As a self-employed contractor she would not be entitled to rights such as the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay.
The employment tribunal found that the terms of the written agreement did not reflect the reality of how the relationship operated in practice and found that Ms Dewhurst was in fact a worker. The tribunal took into account a range of factors, including; Ms Dewhurst was expected to work when she said she would, she was under the direction and instruction of the company, she had to wear a uniform, she was instructed to smile, she was well integrated into the business and was told when she would be paid and was paid according to a formula used by the company. The employment tribunal concluded that the reality was that Ms Dewhurst had little autonomy over the manner in which the services were performed and no opportunity to dictate its terms. As such, they found she was a worker.
We have seen quite a few similar cases being heard in the employment tribunals, including the Uber case from the end of last year. This case is another reminder for businesses to ensure that anyone they engage as a self-employed contractor is actually operating as an independent contractor in reality.
If you require any advice on employment status, our employment team would be happy to assist.
Please share the article
