1. The appellant (“Autoclenz”) provides car-cleaning services to motor retailers and auctioneers. It has contracts with British Car Auctions (“BCA”) for cleaning vehicles at a number of different places. The respondents (“the claimants”) are 20 individual valeters who at the relevant time provided car- cleaning services at BCA’s Measham site in Derbyshire. In these proceedings the claimants say that they were workers within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (“NMWR”) (SI 1999/584) and of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”) (SI 1998/1833) and that, as workers, they were entitled to be paid in accordance with the NMWR and to receive statutory paid leave under the WTR. Their case is that they were paid neither.

2. The question is whether the claimants were workers within regulation 2(1) of the NWMR, which adopted the definition in section 54(3) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and in regulation 2(1) of the WTR. The definition of worker is in materially identical terms in both sets of regulations as follows:

“... ‘worker’ … means an individual who has entered into or works
under …

(a) a contract of employment; or
(b) any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.”

Materially identical definitions of employee and worker appear in various other statutes and regulations concerning employment rights and protection against unlawful discrimination in the employment field.

The proceedings to date

3. Proceedings were issued in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) by the claimants on 19 November 2007. The question whether the claimants were workers as so defined was determined by the ET as a preliminary issue. In a judgment sent to the parties on 1 March 2008 the ET (Employment Judge Foxwell) held that the claimants were workers within the definition on the basis that they were employed under contracts of employment within limb (a) of the definition and that they were in any event working pursuant to contracts within limb (b). Autoclenz appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), which heard the appeal on 4 June 2008. The EAT (Judge Peter Clark) held that they were not within (a) but that they were within (b). Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher

Details

AGLC: Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
Case: [2011] UKSC 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from Autoclenz Limited against the decision of the Court of Appeal that the claimants were workers under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claimants were car valeters who provided services to Autoclenz. The car valeters had entered into written contracts with Autoclenz that described them as self-employed sub-contractors. The claimants argued that they were workers under the Regulations and were entitled to the minimum wage and paid leave. The key issue for the Court was whether the claimants were workers under the Regulations. The Court considered whether the claimants were working under a contract of employment or under any other contract whereby they undertook to do or perform personally any work or services. The Court found that the written contracts did not accurately reflect the true agreement between the parties and that the claimants were obliged to provide personal service and perform work offered by Autoclenz. The Court concluded that the claimants were workers under the Regulations as they were working under contracts of employment. The Court dismissed Autoclenz's appeal.

Orders