The merely workers. The issue of whether or not

The claim was first heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal concluded that she was not an employee and in any event, did not have the requisite period of continuous employment. Thus, there was no mutuality of obligation. The judge in the Employment HHJ McMullen QC. In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the respondent was Stringfellow resteraunts and the appellant was Ms Nadine Quashie. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered it to be relevant that Nadine attended meetings every Thursday due to the fact that this alone was sufficient to create a continuing contractual obligation, thus compelling the interference that there was an umbrella contract in place. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded there were mutual obligations because Nadine had to turn up based on the rota she was given. Moreover, once she did turn up to work, it was Stringfellows which gave her this opportunity. Thus, HH Judge McMullen found the Tribunal incorrectly held there was no contract of service. The judges in the Court of Appeal were Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Pitchford. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal on 21st December 2012. The solicitiors and counsel were, Mr Thomas Linden QC for the Appellant, under the supervision of Messrs Davenport. Mr John Hendy QC and Ms Catherine Rayner for the Respondent, under the supervision of Bindmans LLP. The appellant sought the restoration of the tribunal decision, in that there was no contract of service. The key issue was whether Stringfellow Resteraunts were under any obligation to pay Nadine Quashie. The appellant wanted the court to come to the conclusion that there was no obligation. It is important to decide whether someone qualifies as an employee or not because it determines whether or not they can claim unfair dismissal, as this right is reserved for employees only, not merely workers. The issue of whether or not there is a contract of employment frequently arises in a situation where a person works on a casual basis with their employer. To resolve such an issue, it is crucial to ascertain whether there is a continuation of contract during any breaks in employment the individual may have. The Court of Appeal did agree with the Employment Tribunal`s analysis of mutuality of obligations, in that they were correct in stating that there was no employer-employee relationship present in the arrangement. Furthermore, Mr Linden`s submission that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was “using the concept of mutuality of obligation in two different ways” was accepted. Linden argued that the Appeal Tribunal were more concerned with the nature of the obligations, as opposed to the mutuality and he felt there was no contract in place. It is not possible for someone to be classed as an employee if no mutuality of obligations exists. This was illustrated by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when they drew upon he case of Ready Mixed Concrete. In this case three elements were established for the requirements of a contract of employment. One of which is that there must be a mutuality of obligations between the employer and employee. One material fact of the case is that Stringfellows did not have to pay Nadine Quashie because she received her pay from customers. The Court of Appeal felt it was key that Nadine discussed fees with clients and took the risk she may not receive anything, thus Stringfellows had no obligation to pay her and it served to highlight that there was no contract of employment. Another material fact is that Nadine paid Stringfellows to dance there, which illustrates the aforementioned point further. Another material fact is that Stringfellows were under no obligation to provide Nadine with work. Thus, there was no obligation to pay her for any work done. If she was an employee, Stringfellows would have provided her with facilities. Instead Nadine was paid by customers and had to abide by a specific rule set as a result. These rules enabled Stringfellows to maintain their license. The grounds of appeal in the Court of Appeal were that the decision in the Employment Appeal Tribunal was concluded incorrectly. This was