Augustine v Econnect Cars Ltd (JURISDICTIONAL POINTS - Worker, employee or neither) [2019] UKEAT 0231_18_2012 (20 December 2019)

Augustine v Econnect Cars Ltd (JURISDICTIONAL POINTS - Worker, employee or neither) [2019] UKEAT 0231_18_2012 (20 December 2019)

The claimant was a 'worker' but not an 'employee' under section 230 ERA 1996 due to autonomy over hours and contractual arrangements. The tribunal erred in finding the claimant was not a part-time worker under regulation 2(2) of the 2000 Regulations; the claimant met the definition. No causation was established between protected disclosures/statutory rights and the respondent's treatment of the claimant.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0231_18_2012
Parties
Appellant Advocate: Jeremy Lewis; Respondent Advocate: Charles Murray
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; finding on part-time worker status substituted; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employee Status, Part Time Worker, Protected Disclosure, National Minimum Wage, Less Favourable Treatment, Contractual Obligations
Employment Law Worker Status Employee Status Part Time Worker Protected Disclosure National Minimum Wage Less Favourable Treatment Contractual Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Lewis

Appellant Advocate

Charles Murray

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'worker' or 'employee' under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a 'part-time worker' under regulation 2(2) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's treatment at the end of the relationship was for a prohibited reason (protected disclosure, assertion of statutory rights)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was a 'worker' but not an 'employee' under section 230 ERA 1996 due to autonomy over hours and contractual arrangements. The tribunal erred in finding the claimant was not a part-time worker under regulation 2(2) of the 2000 Regulations; the claimant met the definition. No causation was established between protected disclosures/statutory rights and the respondent's treatment of the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; finding on part-time worker status substituted; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Finding that claimant was not a part-time worker under the 2000 Regulations set aside and substituted with finding that claimant was a part-time worker.
  • Claim for less favourable treatment under the 2000 Regulations remitted to the same tribunal if available, otherwise to a fresh tribunal.