01293 596900
HomeAbout UsBusinessPersonalNews & ArticlesContactReceived a debt collection letter?Download our 'Income and Expenditure' form here

Can ‘bank workers’ claim unfair dismissal?

July 10, 2018
Employment Law

It’s worth noting that in all these recent cases brought against the likes of Uber, Pimlico Plumbers and Addison Lee, the claimants have sought to argue that they are ‘workers’, rather than fully-fledged employees.  This means that whilst they will enjoy some basic legal rights, they cannot claim unfair dismissal.  

Where does this leave these casual workers?  The recent case of Hafal Ltd v Lane-Angell considered the point.

The facts

Miss Lane-Angell worked for Hafal Ltd from March 2013 until January 2016.  She did not have a ‘traditional’ employment contract; instead she worked under a ‘bank’ arrangement.  This meant that she needed to tell Hafal when she was free to work.  Once she had done so, she was expected to accept any shifts offered to her.  However, she did not receive any guaranteed hours and Hafal was under no obligation to offer her work if none was available.

A little less than the year before Miss L-A left Hafal, it introduced a requirement for ‘bank’ workers to be available for at least 10 shifts per month, together with a requirement to respond to callouts.  On the back of an allegation that Miss L-A had failed to hold up her end of the bargain, Hafal decided that she would be offered no further work. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

The decision

In order for her unfair dismissal claim to succeed, Miss L-A needed to be able to show that she had been an employee of Hafal for at least 2 years before her alleged dismissal.  Whilst her argument was successful before an Employment Tribunal, Hafal successfully appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  The EAT acknowledged the Employment Tribunal’s right to look at both the written agreement between Hafal and Miss L-A and the surrounding circumstances.  However, given that the written agreement clearly stated that Miss L-A was under no obligation to offer herself up for work, this was fatal to her unfair dismissal claim.

Admittedly, the position might have been different had the requirement to be available for at least 10 shifts per month been in place throughout her engagement with the company. However, this requirement was only introduced roughly 9 months before she left.

The written contract still matters

Some of the recent cases on worker status may have left you with the impression that it’s pointless trying to establish a genuine ‘self-employed contractor’ arrangement through a carefully written contract; the Courts and Tribunals often seem to look straight past it.  Admittedly, it is true to say that our judges can look through the written contract, so as to identify the true nature of the contractual relationship.  However, the written contract will still be important and persuasive evidence of the nature of the deal struck between the parties.  This is particularly the case if:

·       the written terms are clear; and

·       the document indicates its intention to establish the ‘entire agreement’ between the company and the individual.

If you need help in reviewing and revising your own contracts with employees, workers or independent contractors, please get in touch.

Share this article

Have you read our other blogs?

‘Cummings and goings’: Downing Street’s novel approach to employment law

Read More

Furlough and holiday – how are you juggling the two?

June 10, 2020
Business Law
Read More
View all Articles

Stay up to date with stevensdrake

Simply fill out your details below to receive stevensdrake's monthly newsletter, including regular topical articles, tips and upcoming events.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.