The Reasoning
The Special Commissioner gave his verdict and handed down his reasons as follows:-
1. All through the three years of the contract, EDS had the services of Shane Roberts
2. Shane had no right to substitute someone to take his place. All he could do was to offer a substitute and it was up to EDS whether they accepted or rejected the substitute
3. Most of the work was carried out at Longbenton and Washington where EDS required it to be carries out, and only a small amount from Shane‘s home
4. He reported to a testing manager who had overall control of testing procedures and how the work was carried out
5. Work was allocated to Shane and his team after discussion with the line manager
6. In law, the purchase order required Shane to carry out work according to instructions
7. He had to work a 37.5 hour week and could only work extra hours with EDS‘s permission
8. Under the agreement, he had to adhere to EDS‘s rules and regulations
9. The contract entitled him to be paid for a 37.5 hour week, and there was an agreed overtime rate, which had to approved by EDS. There was Mutuality of Obligation between EDS and Shane‘s company
10. Except for his laptop, which most people with Shane‘s qualifications have, he provided no other capital equipment
11. Not only was he reporting to a line manager, but he was responsible for recruiting his team, which appeared to make him part of EDS‘s organisation
Conclusion
The Commissioner concluded:-
‘In the particular circumstances of the present arrangements Mr Roberts was well integrated into EDS‘s structure assembled to carry through the CSR project. He had a manager to whom he was accountable. Mr Roberts in turn worked as part of a team managing other people. He was involved in discussions as to work allocation with EDS‘s project line manager. He was expected to be available to advise and assist other members of the team’.
‘He attended meetings with interested parties alongside other EDS managers. Although Mr Roberts‘ role in the organization will not necessarily be determinative, it is clear that in the present circumstances he was an integral part of the EDS organization dedicated to the CSR project’.
‘This feature is in line with the conclusions I have reached based on the control over Mr Roberts‘ work and the presence of mutual obligations of an employer/employee nature existing between EDS and Mr Roberts’.
Which Umbrella Company
Read also our article
Which Umbrella Company
