An employment tribunal has dismissed a discrimination case brought against Morgan Sindall on the grounds the claimant was not a contract worker.
Electrical installer Mr K Crossland took legal action in October 2024 against contractors Whitehead Building Services Ltd and Morgan Sindall for disability discrimination, age discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act.
It came after he had worked at a site for service contractor Whitehead, which was being project managed by Morgan Sindall, in Abergavenny for only a few hours on 10 June last year, during which he undertook an induction and then left.
But at an employment tribunal in Cardiff in May, Judge Claire Sharp threw out his case on the grounds he was self-employed and not a contract worker.
“The judgement of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims are not well-founded and are dismissed as he was not a contract worker under s41 Equality Act 2010,” she ruled.
The tribunal heard that Crossland operated through an umbrella company called Crest Plus, using the Construction Industry Scheme, and was engaged through construction recruitment firm Sphere Solutions Ltd to work on the Abergavenny site for the respondents.
But the hearing was told his contract with Crest stated he would immediately tell Crest Plus if he ceased to be self-employed.
“The Crest Plus contract confirms that the claimant is an independent self-employed professional and can send a substitute to do his work, provided that substitute meets certain requirements. The claimant did not send a substitute during his engagement through Sphere, which only existed on 10 June 2024,” the judge said.
“The Crest contract shows that it would only pay the claimant when it received money from whoever was due to pay him; the claimant bore the risk of non-payment.
“There is no evidence of a contract between Crest and Sphere for the provision of the claimant’s labour; the evidence shows that the claimant personally contacted Sphere and dealt with it but there is no written contract between the claimant and Sphere either.”
The judgement highlighted the absence of written contract between Crossland and Sphere, saying that Sphere “had no contractual control over him, it had no supervision function, it did not pay him directly, and there was no mutuality of obligation”.
The tribunal heard Crossland initiated contact with Sphere after applying to a job advert for freelance work. He then accepted the work.
“The claimant, as is consistent with his Crest Plus documentation and the reality of the situation, had been hired as a self-employed subcontractor to carry out the work of an electrical improver on the site run by [Whitehead],” the judge said.
“Sphere did contract with [Whitehead] to provide the claimant. However, as the claimant was not Sphere’s employee, but training on his own account, he was not a contract worker under s41 and the claims are therefore not well founded and are dismissed.
“[Morgan Sindall] is not a principal. It had no contract with Sphere and is too removed from the claimant’s engagement to be treated as the principal. At its highest [Morgan Sindall] would have gained some benefit if the claimant had undertaken any work as part of the much larger overall project, but it had no influence or control over the claimant’s engagement.”
Read More
Nicola Harley