The GP (Narayan – “N”) in the case below was deemed a worker by the Tribunal, with which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed, despite N being engaged and paid via a limited company from 2015 (which the healthcare provider was not initially aware of).
The judge noted the main features of the N’s role, that:-
– she had worked regular shifts for around 12 years, but that there was no mutuality of obligation.
– she could work for other providers, had her own equipment and insurance;
– she had to work personally and could not send a substitute;
– the healthcare provider had to audit the N’s services.
The EAT said the above case was different to Suhail v Herts Urgent Care because the Claimant, in that case, was actively marketing his services, whereas N worked regular shifts for one provider over many years.
We recommend you review your contractor agreements to ensure that status is clear to avoid any unwanted legal/financial consequences.