Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher

Twenty car valeters, including Mr Paul Huntington and Mr Belcher, worked for Autoclenz Ltd in Measham, Derbyshire. Autoclenz Ltd had contracted with British Car Auctions Ltd (BCA) to provide valeting services. The valeters engaged by Autoclenz claimed holiday pay and pay at the rate of the national minimum wage. They had each signed contracts describing them as self-employed. Paul Huntington worked full-time from 1991 until the hearing before the Employment Tribunal (and thereafter) except for a few weeks working for a competitor in 2002 and 2003. In 2007, Autoclenz Ltd invited the valeters to sign new contracts, purportedly clarifying that they were sub-contractors and not employees, that they must provide their own cleaning materials, that there was no obligation to provide services to Autoclenz and nor did Autoclenz have any obligation to offer work to the valeters. Furthermore, there was a term that a valeter could provide a suitably qualified substitute. Autoclenz made a 5% charge for materials, and a charge for insurance. The individuals wore the BCA logo on uniforms for security reasons. Autoclenz contended that the individuals were not 'workers' for the purposes of the statutory definitions of that term in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. ==Judgement==

Employment Tribunal At the Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Foxwell held that the claimants were employees and that even if they were not, they were workers. Judge Peter Clark in the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the claimants were not employees but that they were workers, following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak. The company appealed against the finding that the individuals were workers, and the individuals then cross-appealed against the finding that they were not employees. Court of Appeal Smith LJ held that the car valeters were employees despite the contract describing them as self-employed. Employers and their advisers cannot draft their way out of employment status if that does not accord with the reality of the relationship:{{cite BAILII |litigants=Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher |court=EWCA |division=Civ Aikens LJ concurred in the result, but said that he would put the point in his own words.{{cite BAILII |litigants=Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher |court=EWCA |division=Civ Sedley LJ concurred with Aikens LJ. He said,{{cite BAILII |litigants=Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher |court=EWCA |division=Civ Supreme Court Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson, on appeal, unanimously held that the car valeters were engaged under contracts of employment and this was not affected by the clauses which stated that they were self-employed, had no obligation to work, no right to receive work, and could substitute another worker. Lord Clarke, giving the judgement of the court, emphasised that a contract of employment was a specific kind of contract, not to be treated the same as commercial contracts, because there may be an element of inequality of bargaining power. The judgement of Rimer LJ, in Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak, suggesting that contractual documents contained the expression of the true intentions of the parties unless there was a sham, intended to deceive third parties, was expressly doubted. Accordingly, under the valeters were employees and 'workers' as defined and were entitled both to remuneration at the rate of the national minimum wage and to paid leave. {{quote|{{ordered list|start=19|style=margin-left: 0; font-size:initial {{unbulleted indent list|style=font-size:initial {{quote|style=font-size:initial|{{ordered list|style=margin-left:0; font-size:initial|start=87 [...] I agree. {{quote|style=font-size:initial|{{ordered list|start=92|style=margin-left:0; font-size:initial The facts {{ordered list|style=font-size:initial|start=36| With characteristic clarity and brevity Sedley LJ described the factual position as follows: {{quote|style=font-size: inherit|{{ordered list|start=104|style=margin-left:0;font-size:initial| "Employment judges have a good knowledge of the world of work and a sense, derived from experience, of what is real there and what is window-dressing. The conclusion that Autoclenz's valeters were employees in all but name was a perfectly tenable one on the evidence which the judge had before him. The elaborate protestations in the contractual documents that the men were self-employed were odd in themselves and, when examined, bore no practical relation to the reality of the relationship. {{quote|style=font-size:initial|{{ordered list|start=35|style=margin-left:0; font-size:initial Mr Hassell was the Autoclenz manager at the Measham site. ==See also==