Employment Status - Stringfellow's Stripper Status

The issue of employment status is one that has vexed employers for years. The issue normally raises its head when the self-employed individual becomes disgruntled and realises that, if they were an 'employee', their rights of action would be much stronger. The latest case to have a good look at employment status is Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd. Whilst this of course gives us a golden opportunity to peek into the mysterious world of 'exotic dancers' (including learning what a 'House Mother' is ...), it is also a good excuse to remind ourselves of some of the key tests of employment status.

In order to demonstrate that someone is employed they must show that there is an obligation to provide personal service (i.e. no right to send a substitute); there is a sufficient right of control over, for example, what the individual does, when, where and how; and there is a mutuality of obligation, for example, an obligation to provide work and to do work provided. If these hurdles are passed then the tribunals look at all the other circumstances to see if they are consistent with an 'employment' relationship.

At the initial Tribunal hearing, Ms Quashie established that she provided personal services (no innuendo intended) and was under the control of Stringfellow's in her role as a dancer (no innuendo needed). However, she was unable to demonstrate that there was a mutuality of obligation in the relationship. This decision was appealed to the EAT and they considered whether there were strong enough grounds for the matter to proceed to a full appeal hearing.

The EAT reviewed the initial judgment which had found that, since Quashie was not required to work a set number of nights per week, there was no contractual obligation for Stringfellow's to provide work for which she would be paid (in other words, there was no mutuality of obligation). The EAT however felt that there may...