Policy News Journal - 2017-18

He continued to work until 20 May 2016, when he took holiday and was told that he was not needed to return. Mr Blakely was owed £1453.50 in unpaid holiday pay, as well as the management fee and employer NICs deductions.

The case was initially heard at the Reading employment tribunal which dismissed the claim believing he was not a worker having failed to properly understand the evidence provided. Unite lodged an appeal with the employment appeal tribunal on 3 March 2017 based on the tribunal wrongly applying law and reaching a perverse conclusion. Unite appealed the case to the EAT, after the Reading employment tribunal rejected the case, wrongly finding Mr Blakely was not a worker. The EAT case was heard in early December 2017 but Unite has only recently received the appeal court’s written judgment. The fact that the decision was made at the EAT means that it is binding on all employment tribunals and must be applied in other cases.  The tribunal was wrong to decide that Mr Blakely was not a worker  When determining whether there was a contract (part of the test of whether someone is a worker) the tribunal must consider the intentions of the worker and all surrounding circumstances, not just the intentions of the employer  There was a contract between Mr Blakely and On-Site (the agency) - importantly, the use of a payroll company did not circumvent this relationship  Mr Blakely (and therefore other agency workers being paid through payroll companies) could be a worker of the agency, the payroll company or both. The possibility of being a worker of more than one body provides the opportunity to dramatically reduce the amount of umbrella/payroll company rip offs. The case has now been returned to the employment tribunal, to determine who was Mr Blakely’s employer, whether it was On-Site, Heritage or both. The tribunal will also decide on Mr Blakely’s compensation, which is expected to be around £2,500. The employment appeal tribunal found:

Read the full press release from Unite.

Back to Contents

BBC news presenter loses IR35 appeal 19 February 2018

More than 100 BBC presenters are facing tax bills that could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds after a former presenter lost her case against HMRC.

The Telegraph reports that Christa Ackroyd, a former co-host of the regional Look North programme on BBC One was paid as a freelancer through a personal services company at the BBC's request. HMRC has said that she should have paid the same level of tax as a BBC employee. Ms Ackroyd must now pay back £419,151.

In its ruling , the tax tribunal in Leeds said that, while this was not a test case, "we understand that the present appeal is one of a number of other appeals involving television presenters and personal service companies."

At least 100 past and present BBC presenters are under investigation for alleged tax avoidance by using personal service companies to register as self-employed thereby minimising tax bills.