Assistant to business owner found to be a worker, not an employee
A tribunal ruled that an assistant to a TV craft business owner was a worker, not an employee, and awarded £7,209 for unpaid holiday pay and pension contributions.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Claimant worked as an assistant to Miss Bibby from September 2019 to November 2021.
- The Claimant was paid £10 per hour, later increased to £12, and invoiced monthly.
- The Claimant described herself as self-employed and filed her own tax returns.
- The Claimant had other work including Slimming World and an eBay business.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker but not an employee.
- The Claimant was awarded £7209.30 for holiday pay, pension contributions, and failure to provide written terms.
Timeline
-
Start of engagement
Claimant began working as an assistant to Miss Bibby, initially part-time, invoicing monthly at £10 per hour.
-
COVID-19 lockdown
Claimant's work initially tailed off; she claimed self-employment income support grants.
-
Acquisition of industrial unit
Respondents acquired an industrial unit; Claimant worked from there and home.
-
Resignation and pay rise
Claimant resigned after a dispute but retracted after being offered £12 per hour and profit share.
-
Final resignation
Claimant resigned citing breakdown of trust and confidence, effective 30 November 2021.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Employment Judge O'Rourke found Claimant was a worker but not an employee.
-
Final hearing on remedies
Employment Judge Warren awarded £7209.30 for holiday pay, pension contributions, and failure to provide written terms.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the assistant was an employee or a worker under employment law, which determines her eligibility for claims like unfair dismissal and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the assistant was a worker but not an employee. This meant she could claim holiday pay and pension contributions, but not unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The assistant was required to do the work personally and was integrated into the business.
- However, there was no mutuality of obligation between engagements, and she had other clients.
- The tribunal found she was not an employee because the control and obligations were not sufficient.
Compensation:
- Total award: £7,209.30
- This covered holiday pay, pension contributions, and failure to provide a written statement of terms.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are paid via invoice and describe yourself as self-employed, you may still be a worker if you are required to do the work personally and are not in business on your own account.
- Workers are entitled to holiday pay and pension contributions, but not to protection from unfair dismissal.
- Employers should provide a written statement of terms to all workers, not just employees, to avoid penalties.
- The distinction between employee and worker often hinges on mutuality of obligation and the degree of control exercised by the employer.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the often-blurred line between being self-employed, a worker, and an employee. The assistant worked closely with the business owner, was described as a 'right hand girl', and was expected to 'muck in' with everything. She invoiced monthly, paid her own tax, and had other clients, but the tribunal found she was still a worker because she was required to perform the work personally and was not in business on her own account.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondents could have avoided the claim by providing a written contract that clearly set out the terms of engagement. They also failed to provide a section 1 statement of terms, which led to an additional penalty. By treating the assistant as self-employed without checking the legal reality, they exposed themselves to liability for holiday pay and pension contributions.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that the label given to a working relationship is not decisive. Tribunals will look at the actual working arrangements. For individuals in similar roles, it confirms that they may be entitled to basic worker rights even if they have other clients or describe themselves as self-employed. For businesses, it is a reminder to review the status of anyone who works closely with them on a regular basis.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal after unauthorised wage deductions: employer struck out for non-attendance
A former employee won a constructive unfair dismissal claim after his employer failed to pay wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The tribunal awarded over £14,000 after the employer's response was struck out for non-attendance.
Fire and Security Engineer wins constructive dismissal after being paid through CIS scheme without consent
A tribunal found a fire and security engineer was constructively dismissed after his employer paid him through the Construction Industry Scheme without his informed consent, denying him employment rights. He was awarded £2,519.
General Manager's constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded
A General Manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a dispute over a promised reward for a business sale. The tribunal rejected his claim but awarded £326.41 in unpaid holiday pay.
Constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded for cash-in-hand worker
A counter assistant who resigned after receiving a written warning for sickness absence lost her unfair dismissal claim, but was awarded £4,777.50 for unpaid holiday pay over nine years.