BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McKeown v Chap Cable Ltd & Anor (Status of Applicant) [2002] NIIT 3473_01 (18 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/157.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 3473_01, [2002] NIIT 3473_1 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
McKeown v Chap Cable Ltd & Anor (Status of Applicant) [2002] NIIT 3473_01 (18 November 2002)
CASE REF: 3473/01
APPLICANT: Gerard McKeown
RESPONDENTS: 1. Chap Cable Limited
2. Wrekin Cable Services Limited
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the applicant is a Sub-Contractor of the respondent and not an employee. As such the applicant is not covered by the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
Appearances:
The applicant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Mr John Stocker
The tribunal found the following facts:-
1. the terms of the attached Sub-Contractor Order, marked A1, are very clear;
2. the applicant could chose whether or not to undertake any work, as he made it plain in his evidence that if, for example, his child or his wife was sick, then he could indicate that he was not available and his Contractor Schedule of Works would be reassigned to another Contractor;
3. it was undisputed that the applicant paid his own National Insurance Contribution, and that he employed a Tax Consultant to file his Self-employed Tax Returns;
4. just as the applicant was not obliged to take work, the respondent was not obliged to guarantee a level of work or indeed any work at all. The applicant provided a schedule of his earnings between 6 April 2001 and 12 October 2001, and the tribunal noted that the level of his weekly earnings fluctuated from 0 at the least to £838.04 at the greatest;
5. there was also no entitlement to holiday pay or to sick pay. The applicant confirmed in evidence that if he wished to go on holiday he had to save up in advance and make sure that he had enough money to cover both his holiday and his return; and
6. it was also clear from the evidence that the respondent did not exercise the degree of control over the applicant that would be consistent with a Contract of Employment. The applicant was not told by a supervisor how to install his cabling or do any other work, rather, the role of the supervisor was to check on quality only. It was plain that the supervisors had no disciplinary function whatsoever, and while they liaised with Sub-Contractors this was purely in relation to quality and not other issues.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 November 2002, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: