Non-Executive Directors and ‘Worker’ Status – Guideline Ruling

Can a non-executive director who receives no more than an honorarium for services that he provides voluntarily enjoy the protected status of a ‘worker’? That was the thorny issue addressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a guideline case.

The case concerned a professional who…

Sep 23, 2022

The case concerned a professional who was appointed to a four-year non-executive directorship of a national sporting body. In Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, he alleged that he had been subjected to detriments for whistleblowing. His claim was, however, dismissed on the basis that he was not a worker, as defined by Section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).

His role was described as voluntary and there was no written contract between him and the body. Save for a £1,500 annual honorarium, he was paid nothing for his services. He held a full-time position with an unconnected business and was not required to attend the body’s board or committee meetings. Although he was unable to provide a substitute to perform his role, he was free to resign his directorship at any time without any requirement to give notice.

In its decision, the ET observed that the purpose of the relevant provisions of the ERA is to protect vulnerable workers from unfair treatment. It noted that the man was free to undertake his activities with complete independence. He was not in any sense a vulnerable individual in a position of subordination.

In upholding his appeal, however, the EAT noted that those observations had little relevance to his position as a non-executive officeholder. The sole question for the ET to determine was whether there was a contractual relationship between him and the body whereby he undertook to perform work or services personally. However, it failed to make a clear finding on that issue.

The ET had also failed to engage with particular factors that the man relied on as pointing to his having undertaken his duties pursuant to a contract with the body. In those circumstances, it was neither safe nor fair to uphold the ET’s decision on worker status. The matter was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted ET.

Employment Tribunal Blasts Operations Manager’s ‘Sham’ Redundancy

Employers all too often assert that a worker’s services are no longer needed when the real reason for their dismissal has nothing whatever to do with redundancy. As one case showed, however, employment judges were not born yesterday and are always on the lookout for such shams. The case concerned the former head of operations of an advertising sales company. He worked long hours, often at weekends and during his holidays. He had a difficult relationship with his line manager, however, largely…

Maternity Discrimination Victim Receives Substantial Compensation

Maternity leave should be a period of joy and tranquillity but, all too often, it is marred by discrimination. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, however, employers who treat new mothers unfavourably can expect to pay a high reputational and financial price. The case concerned a group marketing director who was deeply upset by comments made by male colleagues after they heard of her pregnancy. One asked her when she had stopped taking contraception and how she thought having a…

Lost Your Job Due to the Pandemic? You May Have Been Unfairly Dismissed

If you are amongst the cohort of workers who have been made redundant in the wake of the pandemic and feel that you have been treated unfairly, you should contact a solicitor without delay. In one case, a bar manager who was sacked without notice received thousands of pounds in compensation. After several months on furlough, the 58-year-old man, who had been employed at a hotel for six years, was asked to return to work to prepare for reopening. A few weeks later, however, he received a letter…