• Robert Spicer

Worker or employee or self-employed? Another tribunal decision


Mutuality of obligation

Case Capita Translations v Slauclunas and another (2017) Morning Star, April 7, EAT

Facts The Ministry of Justice entered into a framework agreement with A Ltd which was then acquired by CT to provide interpreters as and when required by tribunals and courts. S was registered with CT as a Lithuanian speaker and was told by CT about vacancies for appointments. S entered into an interpreting services agreement with CT. this required him to comply with a dress code. He was paid by the day with no provision for holiday pay, sick pay or pension and he was responsible for his own tax. S complained that he had been subjected to less favourable treatment in comparison with Russian language interpreters by reason of his race and his religious or philosophical beliefs. The ET found that S was an employee. He was under a contract to do the work personally and he was in a position of subordination. The lack of mutuality was not relevant. CT appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The ET judge had misdirected herself in law by failing to consider the issue of mutuality of obligation.

2. The matter should be remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing.

3. Each ET must decide cases based on its own findings of fact and its own interpretation of the law.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Refusal of Covid-19 vaccination Religious belief Case Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd (2022) Leeds Employment Tribunal, January 11 Facts A was employed by S as a care home nurse. She was d