When Szilagyi objected to working in unsafe conditions he was dismissed.
Szilagyi thereupon claimed unfair dismissal pursuant to section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as an employee within section 230 of the Act.
Szilagyi filed a complaint with an employmment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal but Mr Squires the proprietor of Protectacoat argued that Szilagyi was not entitled to claim unfair dismissal as as he was an independent contractor. Squires brought as evidence a contract signed by Szilagyi supposedly working as an independant contractor and having a partner.
The Court of Appeal (CA) has however upheld decisions of an Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal(EAT) that a written contract and a 'Partnership' agreement drawn up by Protectacoat were a sham drawn up in order to avoid extending to the claimant protections that the law gives to employees.
None of the conditions of a partnership existed other than in writing, but many conditions pointing to Szilagyi's being an employee existed such as the work being controlled by Squires, that the claimant had to check in to work each morning. Szilagyi was supplied with transport, tools and his salary was paid net into his bank account each month.
The CA declared that if there is a contractual document, that is ordinarily where the answer to the question of employment status is to be found.
So if it is asserted by a party that the document does not represent or describe the true relationship, the court or tribunal will need to decide what the true relationship is.
If it was established that the true relationship was intended to be different from its description in the contract then the tribunal would ask itself what legal rights and obligations the written agreement created.
But a written contract should not be treated as sacrosanct, as otherwise lawyers would insert substitution clauses into contracts to undermine the real status and protections of employees.
Furthermore, a document shown to be a sham designed to deceive others will be wholly disregarded in deciding what was the true relationship between the parties, the question always being what the true legal relationship is between the parties.
The transcript of this case can be found
Here
© Workrep 26 / 02 / 2009