EAT rules on employment status and unfair dismissal in Al Taweel v Stichting Female Journalists Network
Introduction
In the employment law case of Roua Al Taweel v Stichting Female Journalists Network, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) engages with issues surrounding the employment status of the Claimant and considerations of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, race discrimination, and victimisation. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and the EAT’s application of them as determined in the case.
Key Facts
The Claimant worked for the Respondent from March 1, 2018, to April 30, 2020, purportedly encountering changes in her employment status throughout this period. Originally, the Claimant worked under a contract labelling her a self-employed consultant until August 31, 2018. A subsequent engagement under a different contract from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, categorised her as an employee. In 2020, she provided services through a company she established, leading to questions about her employment status.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially concluded the Claimant could not pursue claims of unfair dismissal or breach of contract due to the determination that she was not an employee at the contract’s termination. However, the EAT had to determine whether the underlying employment relationship persisted despite the interposition of the Claimant’s company.
Legal Principals
The legal principles addressed centre on the determination of employment status, the dual employment rule, and the definition of “temporary cessation of work.”
Employment Status
The EAT, referencing Catamaran Cruisers v Williams, underscored the principle that the introduction of a limited company into the contractual relationship does not inherently negate existing employment status between the Claimant and Respondent.
Dual Employment Rule
The EAT explored the principle established in Patel v Specsavers, which articulates that an individual cannot be employed by two employers simultaneously in respect of the same work. The EAT examined whether the ET had sufficiently applied the “Ready Mixed Concrete criteria” and whether the realities on the ground were accurately interpreted to conclude the Claimant was an employee of her own company.
Temporary Cessation of Work
The EAT utilized the precedent in Sillars v Charrington and Ford v Warwickshire to evaluate whether breaks in the employment relationship were “temporary cessations of work.” The tribunal considered how the term “temporary” relates to the entire period of work and noted that all relevant factors, including the expectations of both parties, should be considered.
Outcomes
The EAT concluded that:
-
The ET failed to provide a proper evidential basis that the Claimant was an employee of her company and, consequently, not of the Respondent in 2020. The issue was to be remitted to the ET for reconsideration.
-
The ET correctly found that the Claimant was not an employee in 2018 but was in 2019, consistent with the evidence about the operation of the parties.
-
The ET incorrectly approached the issue of whether the gaps in work in 2018 were due to “temporary cessation of work,” and this aspect was not properly examined in relation to the ET’s conclusion on the employment status in 2018.
Conclusion
The EAT’s decision underscores the importance of applying established legal criteria to determine employment status and the intricacies of assessing continuity of employment, particularly when interruptions occur. It also highlights the requirement for ETs to thoroughly evaluate the evidence when classifying the relationship of parties in the employment context, and to correctly apply legal principles when assessing employment rights and status, such as the dual employment rule and the nature of work cessation. The matter of the Claimant’s employment status in 2020, as well as her claims for unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) and breach of contract are now remitted back to the ET for further consideration.