A former £200,000-a-year Stringfellows stripper has been granted permission to appeal a decision by the London Central Employment Tribunal, which ruled she could not sue her former ‘employer’ as she was self-employed.
Nadine Quashie was sacked from the lap- dancing club in 2008 over drug allegations and launched an unfair dismissal claim on the grounds that she was a full-time employee.
She argued that she was required to work certain shifts, attend regular staff meetings and was prohibited from working for competitors.
However, despite the working practices, the tribunal ruled that there was no mutual obligation between Quashie and Stringfellows to provide and do work.
In the latest ruling, given earlier this month, Judge Jeremy McMullen QC gave permission for Quashie’s appeal to be heard on the basis that she was rostered to work for Stringfellows.
McMullen suggested that there was a corresponding obligation on Stringfellows’ part to allow Quashie to work on the rostered dates and pay her as a result.
Should the appeal be successful, the industry may potentially face reform with greater regulation for those working long, regular hours.
Bindmans employment partner Shah Qureshi on behalf of Quashie said that there were good arguments to support the case that his client was an employee at Stringfellows.
“Dancers in clubs are often exploited due to their lack of employment status. The clubs insist on them being self-employed despite the fact that they have obligations like any other employee,” he added.
It is understood that Stringfellows has counter-appealed with the full hearing of the appeal due to be heard on 1 March 2012.
Qureshi instructed Tooks Chambers’ Catherine Rayner on behalf of Nadine Quashie.
Davenport Lyons partner Maria van der Zyl instructed Cloisters’ Caspar Glyn to act for Stringfellows.