Employment Status and Dual Employment
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a taxi driver could not simultaneously be an employee and worker of two different employers in respect of the same work.
In the case of United Taxis Ltd v Comolly and anor, Mr. Comolly worked as a taxi driver for United Taxis Ltd (UT). He carried out his driving work through one of the company's shareholders, T. UT did not engage drivers directly and it was only through a shareholder that a driver could work without having to pay a monthly circuit fee.
Drivers registered with UT were expected to adhere to certain standards in respect of matters such as a dress code and expectations around carrying out private work whilst registered with UT. However, UT was not involved in how Mr Comolly was engaged by T, nor how he was paid. There was no written contract between Mr Comolly and T, and the relationship was described as one of self-employment. T provided Mr Comolly with a car to drive between certain hours. Mr Comolly had to contribute to the car's insurance, and also had to split his fares 50/50 with T.
A dispute arose between Mr Comolly and T, in respect of which Mr Comolly brought various Tribunal claims, arguing that he was either an employee or worker of UT or T. The Tribunal found that Mr Comolly was an employee of T and a worker of UT. Both T and UT appealed to the EAT.
EAT Decision
The EAT allowed both appealed. The Tribunal was wrong to find that Mr Comolly had worker status in the context of his relationship with UT. The Tribunal had overlooked the possibility that the contractual relationship could merely be a side agreement to the main agreement with T, under which Mr Comolly agreed to adhere to certain standards as a condition of being permitted to carry passengers as a sub-contractor of T.
The Tribunal had also been wrong to find that Mr Comolly was simultaneously an employee of T and a worker for UT. Case law has previously found that it is problematic to hold that a person can be employed by two employers at the same time and for the same work. Where a person has been found to be an employee or worker under one contract, it is not necessary to have their rights protected under a second.
Finally, the EAT also found the Tribunal had been wrong to find that Mr Comolly was employed by T. It substituted a finding that he was instead a worker, taking into account the nature and degree of control exercised by T over Mr Comolly.
Learning Points
This decision highlights the complexity of dual employment relationships. Whilst there is limited case law in the area, the EAT was clear in its judgment that it was not aware of any authority to suggest that dual employment in respect of the same work is legally possible.