Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Performers’ Status

30th May, 2012

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently held that a lap dancer is able to fall within the definition of an “employee” (as defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) for the purposes of bringing an unfair dismissal claim.

In Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Limited UKEAT/0289/11, the Claimant worked under a standard contract but it was generally understood in the industry that the relationship was one of self-employment.  The Claimant worked on a rota; was entitled to work when on the rota; and was paid by the Respondent for vouchers which she received from clients, subject to agreed deductions.

It was held by the employment tribunal that the Claimant and Respondent’s relationship did not possess the key factors relevant in deciding whether an employment relationship exists, as set out in Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497. The key factors in an employment relationship are:

–          personal service;

–          employer control; and

–          mutuality of obligation.

The employment tribunal held that although the first two factors were satisfied, there was no mutuality of obligation.  The employment tribunal’s decision was based on the fact that there was no obligation on the Respondent to pay the Claimant if she did not earn the required amount in vouchers, she did not need permission to go on holiday and she could work elsewhere.

On appeal, the EAT disagreed with the employment tribunal’s decision and held that the Claimant was capable of being an employee due to:

–          the Respondent having the right to control the Claimant’s activities when she was at work;

–          the Claimant having to attend work in accordance with the rota;

–          the Respondent having to give her the opportunity to dance to earn money; and

–          the Respondent’s obligation to pay the Claimant under the voucher system and under its Council licence.

For continuity purposes, the EAT went on to hold that there was an employment relationship under an umbrella contract.  This was due to a number of factors including: combination of nights actually worked, periods between nights booked on the rota and attendance at a weekly meeting.

The case has been remitted to consider whether the Claimant’s contract had been void for illegality (in light of representations made by her to HM Revenue and Customs) and, if not, to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.

This could potentially lead to claims from other regular performers who previously saw themselves as self employed rather than having a status such as employee, such as: musicians and other entertainers.

If you have any queries arising from the above case or regarding employment status generally, please do not hesitate to contact Catherine Kerr in the Employment team at [email protected].

 

 

 

 

 

You might also be interested in...

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP

15th May, 2018

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »

When you should NOT pay the bailiff…

24th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »

Employee awarded 15 years back-pay

11th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »

Contact Us