United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G HAGAG The Appellant in person


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision promulgated on 21 September 1998 of an Employment Tribunal sitting in London (North) whereby they held that the Applicant, Mr Hagag, was not entitled to claim for unfair dismissal, holiday or sick pay. He was not so entitled because they found that there was no relationship of an employer/employee existing between him and the Respondents. Mr Hagag appeals that decision.

The facts so far as relevant to this case are that Mr Hagag began working for the Respondent from time to time in September of 1997 as a banqueting waiter. The amount of work he got depended upon the number of functions per week being held by the Hotel. He was called in when he was wanted by the hotel and it was then up to him to decide whether he wanted to accept the work being offered by the hotel. The system was that the hotel would, on a Friday, map out what worker requirements they wanted for the following week and that would depend upon the amount of bookings they had for dinners and similar functions. That same day, the people who they had on their books as casual workers would ring in to find out whether they were wanted the next week and if so on what dates. Then of course it was entirely up to the casual workers to see whether what was offered fitted in with their own diaries. They were free not to accept the work being offered.

This is the finding of fact of the Tribunal and it matches in very closely to a written statement by Mr Hagag himself in which he states his own appreciation of the position quite frankly when he says "I know I am a casual worker but I do not know what is meant by a casual worker". Then he goes on to say the amount of hours he worked each week depended on how busy is the demand. In effect he is accepting, as he did in answer to us, that the hotel was under no obligation to offer him work and he in turn was under no obligation to accept any work that was offered to him. Both parties were free agents to do as they wished.

Mr Hagag feels it is unfair that being a casual worker does not attract any of the protection afforded to regular employees under the Employment Rights Act and with a certain amount of commonsense and understanding, he says something ought to be done about this by Parliament. However, he does understand that we are not here to tell Parliament what they should do. We are here to apply the law as it is given to us by Parliament. We cannot find that there is any arguable point arising on this decision and accordingly, it is our duty to dismiss this appeal at this stage and that is what we do.