Labourer wins unfair dismissal claim after being treated as self-employed
A labourer with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer summarily ended his employment due to lack of work, without following any redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £5,600 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Abedi worked as a labourer for Staton Young (Anglesey) Limited from 10 June 2017 to 23 December 2020.
- The respondent terminated the relationship summarily on 23 December 2020 due to lack of work.
- The respondent conceded that if Mr Abedi was an employee, the dismissal was unfair as no fair procedure was followed.
- The tribunal found Mr Abedi was an employee, not a self-employed contractor.
- The respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment.
- The claim for unauthorised deductions was settled by consent for £5,750.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Abedi began working directly for Staton Young (Anglesey) Limited as a labourer, after being approached by director Mr Brough.
-
Dismissal
The respondent summarily terminated Mr Abedi's employment due to lack of work.
-
Hearing
The tribunal heard the case, with Mr Abedi representing himself and the respondent represented by operations director Ms Colmer.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Adkinson issued the judgment, finding Mr Abedi was an employee and awarding redundancy payment, compensatory award, notice pay, and compensation for failure to provide written particulars.
-
Consent judgment on unauthorised deductions
The respondent agreed to pay £5,750 in settlement of the unauthorised deductions claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or a self-employed contractor, and if an employee, whether he was unfairly dismissed and entitled to redundancy payment, notice pay, and compensation for failure to provide written particulars.
The outcome
The tribunal declared that the claimant was an employee of Staton Young (Anglesey) Limited. The respondent conceded that if he was an employee, the dismissal was unfair due to lack of procedure. The tribunal awarded:
- Redundancy payment: £1,200 (basic award reduced to zero)
- Compensatory award: £1,600
- Notice pay: £1,200
- Compensation for failure to provide written particulars: £1,600
Total: £5,600. A separate claim for unauthorised deductions was later settled by consent for £5,750.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers cannot avoid employment rights by treating workers as self-employed if the reality of the relationship shows control and mutuality of obligation.
- A summary dismissal for lack of work without any consultation or fair procedure is almost certainly unfair if the worker is an employee.
- Workers should keep evidence of their employment, such as bank statements and messages, to prove their status if challenged.
- Employers must provide written particulars of employment within two months of start date, or face compensation.
This case shows how important it is for employers to correctly classify their workers. The labourer worked directly for Staton Young (Anglesey) Limited for over three years, but the company argued he was a self-employed contractor. The tribunal looked at the reality of the relationship and found he was an employee, meaning he was entitled to redundancy pay and protection from unfair dismissal.
What the employer did wrong
The respondent summarily dismissed the labourer on 23 December 2020, telling him there was no work. They did not follow any redundancy procedure, such as consulting with him or considering alternative roles. At the hearing, they conceded that if he was an employee, the dismissal was unfair. They also failed to provide written particulars of employment, which led to an additional award.
Why this matters for similar claims
For workers in similar situations, this case highlights that the label given to a relationship is not decisive. Tribunals will look at factors like control, whether the worker provides their own equipment, and whether they can send someone else to do the work. Here, the labourer worked directly for the company, used their equipment, and was told what to do. His bank statements showed regular payments, which helped prove employment.
The case also serves as a reminder that employers who try to avoid employment rights by claiming self-employment risk significant compensation awards. The total of £5,600, plus the later settlement for unpaid wages, shows the financial consequences of getting it wrong.
Similar cases
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.
Dismissed by redundancy without pay: employer's failure to respond leads to £45,000 award
Two former employees of Cheshiregate Property Services were awarded over £45,000 after the company failed to defend claims of redundancy pay, notice pay, and unpaid wages.
Unfair dismissal and redundancy: employer ordered to pay £1,278 for multiple breaches
A former employee has won her claim for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, unauthorised holiday pay deductions and breach of contract. The tribunal ordered Teresa Purdie to pay a total of £1,278.84.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.