Employment status hinges on employer’s right to control

Case 4: The facts

White and Todd were caretakers/managers of a small Surrey estate for absentee owners who visited once or twice a year. Their contract gave them various duties in relation to the farm and surrounding land. There were no fixed hours but the word “employment” was used in various places throughout the contract.

They brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but the owners denied they were employees when the arrangement had ended.

The tribunal decided that the claimants were workers and not employees, on the basis that the owners did not exercise day-to-day control over them. The claimants appealed.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the tribunal’s finding and decided that the claimants were indeed employees.

The EAT confirmed that what matters is whether there was a sufficient contractual right of control over the claimants. The question is not whether in practice, the owners in this case exercised day-to-day control over how the claimants did their work.

Commentary

It has always been the case that many employees have enjoyed substantial freedom as to how they do their work. What is crucial to an employment relationship is that the employer has the contractual right to give instructions to them, whether or not it is exercised.

White and Todd v Troutbeck S.A. [2013] UKEAT 0177/12/2301