Post office Ltd

Case No: 1402149/18 and 119 others 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Mark Baker and 119 others (see attached schedule) Respondent: Post Office Limited London Central by CVP Employment Judge Goodman Ms H. Craik Mr M. Reuby 1-4, 7-9, 11, 21-25, 28 February, 4 March 2022 in chambers 7,11 March 2022 Representation For the claimants: Mr S. Cheetham Q.C. and Mr B. Jones For the respondent: Mr C. Jeans Q.C. and Ms J. Stone PRELIMINARY HEARING JUDGMENT The claimants are not workers within the meaning of the Working Time Regulations 1996 REASONS 1. The claimants are postmasters. They operate post office branches under a contract with the Post Office, made either with themselves as individuals, or with a limited company of which they are directors. They presented claims for holiday pay against the respondent Post Office on 10 June 2018. 2. The issue for this preliminary hearing is whether they are workers, as defined in regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Directive 1998. 3. It has been agreed that the issue will be decided by reference to ten sample claimants. They are not lead cases within the meaning of rule 36. 4. The sample claimants are identified in the table below. This shows contractual arrangements at the date the claims were presented. Case No: 1402149/18 and 119 others 2 5. Until 2010, with the exception of large retail operators, postmasters were called sub-postmasters, and were engaged on SPSO – sub-postmaster standard terms. Since that date, all are known as postmasters. From 2013 they have been engaged on Network Transformation (NT) terms, whether Mains (M), or Locals (L). Some who were formerly on SPSO have transferred to an NT contract, whether Mains or Local. Others remain on SPSO terms. The type of contract governing their current work is identified in the table as SPSO, M or L. Claimants – sole traders Branch L Mark Baker ...