Case review – being employed by multiple employers

24 July 2023

Is it possible for a person to be an employee or worker of two different employers at the same time in respect of the same work?

“No”, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

In the case of United Taxis Ltd v Comolly and Comolly v Mr Tidam

In this case, Mr Comolly was a taxi driver and his work involved driving passengers of United Taxis through an agreement with one of the shareholders, Mr Tidman.

United Taxis was owned by multiple member-shareholders. Each member-shareholder would pay a subscription fee in order to register vehicles and gain access to the work provided by the company, as well as provide vehicles to other drivers.

Mr Comolly used Mr Tidman’s licensed taxi to carry out his work. There was no written contract between the two parties setting out the basis of the relationship although both Mr Comolly and Mr Tidamn labelled the Claimant as self-employed.

When the relationship ended Mr Comolly brought claims in the employment tribunal asserting that he was either an employee or a worker of United Taxis or Mr Tidman.

The Tribunal ruled that he was a worker of United Taxis as well as an employee of Mr Tidman.

The work he carried out consisted of driving United Taxi passengers and this called into question whether he could be an employee and a worker of different employers in respect of the same type of work.

The EAT disagreed and held that Mr Comolly could not be engaged or employed by different employers in respect of the same work. The concept of ‘dual employment’ has been found problematic and the EAT noted that dual employment was noted as legally impossible.

The EAT subsequently found there to be no relationship between United Taxis and Mr Comolly. United Taxis contracted out the task of conveying its passengers to Mr Tidman, who in turn sub-contracted it to Mr Comolly.

They therefore found that Mr Comolly was simply a worker of Mr Tidman as Mr Comolly provided services to him in exchange for payment.

The EAT held that the Tribunal, when ruling that he was an employee of Mr Tidman, had failed initially to consider the nature, source and extent of control Mr Tidman exercised over Mr Comolly. The availability of the taxi was down to Mr Tidman however, he had no particular control over what he did during the time the taxi was available; Mr Comolly was free to do as much or as little taxi work as he wanted. He was therefore a worker and not an employee.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of properly establishing the status of an individual. Simply because someone is labelled as an employee/worker/self-employed does not mean that the label properly reflects the reality of the situation.

If you require assistance understanding employment status please contact a member of our employment team on 01254 828300 or here.