In a recent decision, the Bristol Employment Tribunal confirmed an agency bus driver was classified as a worker, allowing his unlawful deductions claim to proceed.

At the Preliminary Hearing in March 2025, it was clarified that the Claimant (K Theodoridis) intended to pursue claims for alleged unpaid wages, asserting that he was guaranteed fifty hours per week by the Respondent (Intsol Recruitment), whom he considered his employer at the relevant times.

The Claimant applied for work with the Respondent online in December 2021 and completed/signed two documents that were issued to him by the Respondent. The documents included a 19-page “employment contract” between the Claimant and an umbrella company Max Your Pay Ltd (“MYPL”). The employment contract stated MYPL as his employer and made no reference to the Respondent. The employment contract also confirmed that whilst there may be periods when the Claimant may not have an assignment but did “guarantee” at least 336 paid hours over a 12-month period.

The Claimant commenced work for First Bus, a client of the Respondent, in January 2022. A letter from the Respondent’s ex-head of compliance confirmed the Claimant was employed by Integrated Solutions and that he was contractually guaranteed 50 hours a week.

The Judge concluded that:

• The arrangements in question fell short of establishing that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent and being referred to as an “employee” in some documentation did not determine the Claimant’s legal status in the same;
• The continuous assignment did not demonstrate mutuality of obligation and, when the Claimant was offered alternative assignments when the work at First ceased, he declined them. As an employee, the Claimant would not have been free to decline alternative work;
• There was a lack of control, as the Claimant’s contact with the Respondent was limited;
• The Claimant was a worker for the Respondent on the basis that he provided a personal service to the Respondent’s agency; and
• The arrangement with MYPL was no more than a mechanism for payment and it was the Respondent agency for whom the Claimant worked, though he was not its employee.

Since the Judge determined the Claimant was not an employee, the claim for breach of contract was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.