Bond v Copeland & Anor (t/a AIMS) [2004] NIIT 70_04 (29 October 2004)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Bond v Copeland & Anor (t/a AIMS) [2004] NIIT 70_04 (29 October 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/70_04.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 70_04, [2004] NIIT 70_4

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 70/04

    APPLICANT: David James Bond

    RESPONDENTS: 1. David James Copeland

    2. David Mulholland
    Both t/a A.I.M.S.
    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:

    (a) the title of the proceedings be amended by substituting David James Copeland and David Mulholland trading as A.I.M.S. as the respondent in the matter;
    (b) the respondents do pay to the applicant the sum of £390.00 by way of outstanding wages.

    Appearances:

    The applicant appeared in person.

    The respondents were represented by Mr D J Copeland.

    Summary Reasons

  1. Mr Copeland indicated that the respondent organisation was a partnership between himself and David Mulholland trading as A.I.M.S. (An Independent Mortgage Solution) and they were, by agreement, substituted as the respondents in the matter.

  2. There were two issues for the tribunal. The first issue was whether the applicant was an employee or whether he was self-employed. The second issue was whether any and, if so, how much money was due to him on foot of his contract.

  3. The applicant had signed a document designed to govern the relationship between the applicant and the respondents. The document itself contained a number of inconsistencies describing itself at the outset as 'Employment Agreement for self-employed sales representative'. Having considered the agreement the tribunal concludes that the relationship described therein amounted to an employer/employee relationship, particularly when the applicant had, as was not disputed, opted for payment on the 'safe' option of 'a basic wage of £10.00 per hour plus a bonus of £4.00 for each completed questionnaire …..'

  4. As the applicant was an employee the normal expectation would be that he would receive a wage. The rate apparently provided for was £10.00 per hour. It was suggested by the respondents that the applicant's terms of acceptance required him to undergo training lasting some three hours, that he would not be paid for such training, and that he would, thereafter, have to work with another employee for four weeks during which time he would receive payment. The tribunal did not find this evidence from the respondents convincing. There was no mention of any training in the agreement itself which was expressed to represent 'the entire agreement between the parties'. Furthermore, the respondents had, at the time of acceptance of the applicant as a future employee, handed over a number of documents which the applicant would ultimately use. The tribunal considered that if these documents had been handed out only for training purposes only one copy of each relevant document would have been given. Furthermore, when the applicant phoned in with leads arising out of visits conducted by him, the respondents did not refuse to accept these leads. Nor did they indicate at that early stage to the applicant that if he continued to work in the way that he did he would be dismissed. On the contrary they agreed to accept the leads and to pay the applicant at the rate of £4.00 per successful lead. Such a reaction suggested a full employment relationship between the parties.

  5. The applicant's evidence was that he had worked over a period of three weeks, eleven hours, twelve hours and sixteen hours. These times were not disputed and accordingly the tribunal find that the applicant should be paid for those hours at the rate of £10.00 per hour making in total the sum of £390.00.

  6. No question of recoupment arises.

  7. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

    8. Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 29 October 2004, Belfast.

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/70_04.html