Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #employment-status
- #sex-discrimination
- #equal-pay
- #unfair-dismissal
- #no-employment-relationship
Key facts
- The claimant signed a contract with an agency (RE People Ltd) stating he was not an employee of the agency or the hirer.
- The claimant worked on assignment at Unipart Group Ltd, which had a contract with Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL) to provide logistics services.
- The claimant did not give evidence at the hearing, relying solely on documentary evidence.
- The tribunal found no evidence that SCCL had any control over the claimant's work or that Unipart acted as SCCL's agent.
- The claimant was not an employee of SCCL and had no contract with SCCL.
- All claims against both respondents were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Assignment email
Agency representative Jill Wanklyn emailed the claimant confirming his assignment as a Customer Service Advisor at Unipart's Daisy House premises, starting 14 September 2020.
-
Start of assignment
The claimant began working on assignment at Unipart.
-
SCCL management transfer
SCCL's shares were transferred to NHS England, but SCCL remained a separate legal entity.
-
Case management hearing
At a case management hearing, the claimant stated he had no contract with the agency and claimed he was an employee of SCCL.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence from witnesses for the respondents. The claimant confirmed he would not give evidence.
-
Final hearing (day 2)
Oral judgment was given dismissing all claims.
-
Written reasons sent
The tribunal sent written reasons for the judgment.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Mensah refused the reconsideration application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL) or whether Unipart Group Ltd acted as SCCL's agent, so that he could bring claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and equal pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims against both respondents.
The key reason was that the claimant was not an employee of SCCL – he had signed a contract with an agency stating he was not an employee of the agency or the hirer, and there was no evidence that SCCL controlled his work or that Unipart acted as SCCL's agent.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers should be aware that their employment status is determined by the terms of their contract with the agency, and they may not be considered employees of the end-user or hirer.
- If you deny having a contract with the agency, you may struggle to establish any employment relationship with the end-user.
- Tribunals rely on evidence of control and contractual arrangements – without a contract or evidence of control, claims against the end-user are unlikely to succeed.
- Choosing not to give evidence at the hearing can weaken your case, as the tribunal may give less weight to documentary evidence alone.
This case illustrates the difficulties agency workers can face when trying to bring employment claims against the end-user of their services. The claimant, an agency worker assigned to Unipart Group Ltd through an agency, argued that he was an employee of Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL) – the organisation that had contracted with Unipart for logistics services. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and equal pay.
The status hurdle
The tribunal examined the contractual arrangements. The claimant had signed a contract with the agency stating he was not an employee of the agency or the hirer. At a case management hearing, he stated he had no contract with the agency, effectively denying any employment relationship. The tribunal found no evidence that SCCL exercised control over his work or that Unipart acted as SCCL's agent. Without an employment contract or evidence of control, the claims could not succeed.
What went wrong for the claimant
The claimant chose not to give evidence at the hearing, relying solely on documentary evidence. The tribunal noted that he was given the opportunity to testify but declined. This meant the tribunal had to decide the case on the documents alone, which did not establish the necessary employment relationship. The claimant also applied for reconsideration, arguing that the tribunal had not considered all the evidence, but the judge refused, finding no arguable error.
Why this matters
For agency workers, this case is a reminder that employment status is determined by the actual contractual and working arrangements, not by who they believe their employer should be. Without a direct contract or significant control by the end-user, claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and equal pay against that end-user are unlikely to succeed. The case also highlights the importance of giving evidence – tribunals may give less weight to documentary evidence alone, especially when the claimant has not been cross-examined.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal after unreasonable disciplinary procedure: £2,373 awarded despite employee's own conduct
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after Fyfe Mcdade Ltd applied an unreasonable disciplinary procedure. The tribunal awarded £2,373.20, reduced by 50% for the employee's own conduct.
Agency worker unable to claim unfair dismissal against NHS trust: no implied contract
An agency worker who spent nearly three years at an NHS trust was unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim because the tribunal found no implied employment contract existed. The claim was dismissed.
Equal pay claim struck out: why a 'material factor' defence can succeed
An administrative officer's equal pay claim against Carnegie Theatre Trust was struck out after the tribunal found a genuine material factor—different duties and unsociable hours—explained the pay difference. Her sex discrimination complaints about a 2020 grievance and redundancy were allowed to proceed.
Sex discrimination remark during stressful meeting: former employee awarded compensation
A former employee of Digital Grading Studio Limited has won her claim for sex discrimination after a remark made during a stressful meeting. She was also awarded holiday pay, notice pay, and compensation for unfair dismissal, totalling £2,989.36.