Employment tribunal ruling on worker status

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently overturned a decision by the employment tribunal regarding the worker status of Dr Mark Ter-Berg, a dentist who had sold his dental practice and entered into a contractual relationship with the purchaser, Simply Smile Manor House Limited. The EAT found errors in the tribunal's reasoning and remitted the case for further determination.

Background

Dr Ter-Berg sold his dental practices to Simply Smile Manor House Limited and entered into a contract based on the British Dental Association's standard Associate Agreement. He later claimed to be either an employee or a worker of the company, alleging unfair dismissal and detrimental treatment due to protected disclosures. The tribunal initially ruled that he was neither an employee nor a worker.

The Tribunal's Decision

The tribunal concluded that Dr Ter-Berg was not an employee based on the absence of control, integration, and personal service requirements. The tribunal also ruled that he was not a worker, citing the same reasoning and adding that the contractual terms did not impose an obligation of personal service.

The Appeal

Dr Ter-Berg appealed the tribunal's decision, arguing that the tribunal erred in its interpretation of the contractual terms and the application of the legal tests for worker status. His appeal was based on the tribunal's failure to properly consider the personal service requirement and the misapplication of the legal principles regarding worker status.

EAT's Findings

The EAT found that the tribunal erred in its interpretation of the substitution clause in the contract, which should have been seen as consistent with an obligation of personal service. The EAT also noted that the tribunal incorrectly treated the intention of the parties as an exceptional fact negating worker status.

Legal Principles

The EAT reiterated the importance of the personal service requirement in determining worker status and highlighted the need for a purposive approach, as established in Uber v Aslam. The tribunal's reliance on the parties' intentions was deemed insufficient to override the statutory definition of a worker.

Remittal for Further Determination

The EAT remitted the case to the employment tribunal to determine whether the company was a client or customer of Dr Ter-Berg's business undertaking, a key element in establishing worker status. The tribunal was directed to focus on the statutory definition and apply the correct legal principles.

Conclusion

This case underscores the complexities involved in determining worker status and the importance of correctly applying legal principles. The EAT's decision highlights the need for tribunals to carefully consider the statutory definitions and the factual matrix of each case.

Learn More

For more information on employment law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.