Learning mentor found to be employee despite 'contract for services'
A tribunal ruled that a learning mentor who developed and delivered apprenticeship courses was an employee, not a self-employed contractor. The case will now proceed to a final hearing on multiple claims including unfair dismissal and discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employment-status
- #employee
- #worker
- #self-employed
- #mutuality-of-obligations
- #control
- #substitution
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the 1st respondent from 29 January 2019 to 1 April 2020.
- The claimant was engaged to develop and deliver apprenticeship training courses.
- The claimant was paid £200 per day for teaching and £500 per day when also preparing materials.
- The claimant was not provided with a signed written contract; the unsigned contract for services stated he was a contractor.
- The claimant was integrated into the business, attended staff meetings, and used the respondent's email and systems.
- The claimant never provided a substitute and was hired for his personal skill and expertise.
Timeline
-
Interview and instruction
The claimant was interviewed by Kate Deakin and instructed to develop a scheme of work for the Assistant Accountant Level 3 Apprenticeship, expected to last 15 months.
-
First teaching session
The claimant taught his first lesson as instructed by Ms Deakin.
-
Offer letter issued
The respondent issued an 'offer letter – associate' stating the claimant was engaged as a learning mentor at £200 per day, subject to tax and NI deductions.
-
Work email provided
The claimant was given a work email address at the 1st respondent.
-
Claimant signed offer letter
The claimant signed the offer letter, but the unsigned 'contract for services' was never agreed.
-
Second course instruction
The claimant was asked to develop and deliver the Payroll Administrator Level 3 standard training.
-
Ofsted visit and contract discussion
Ms Paseda indicated she wanted to formalise the claimant's employment from April 2020, but the claimant refused to sign a contract dated from March 2020.
-
Claimant called in sick
The claimant emailed the 2nd respondent apologising for not attending a staff meeting due to ill-health.
-
Claimant queried status and tax
The claimant emailed Ms Paseda asking for clarity on his employment status and whether RTI submissions had been made to HMRC.
-
Termination of working relationship
The claimant's working relationship with the respondent was terminated; his email account was disabled.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee, a worker, or self-employed under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, based on the actual working arrangements rather than the contractual label.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was an employee of Willing and Able Ltd. The key reasons were:
- The claimant was required to provide personal service and never used a substitute.
- He was integrated into the business, attending staff meetings and using the respondent's email and systems.
- There was mutuality of obligations: the respondent provided work and the claimant was expected to do it.
- The unsigned 'contract for services' did not reflect the true nature of the relationship.
The case has been remitted for a final hearing to determine the outstanding claims. No compensation has been awarded at this stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- The label in a contract does not determine employment status—tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship.
- If you are required to provide personal service and cannot send a substitute, you are more likely to be an employee or worker.
- Being integrated into the business, such as attending staff meetings and using company systems, points towards employment.
- An unsigned contract carries less weight than the actual conduct of the parties.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates how employment tribunals look beyond contractual labels to determine a person's true employment status. The claimant was a learning mentor who developed and delivered apprenticeship training courses for Willing and Able Ltd. Despite being issued an unsigned 'contract for services' that described him as a contractor, the tribunal found that the reality of his working arrangement was one of employment.
Key factors included the fact that the claimant was required to perform the work personally—he never provided a substitute and was hired for his own skill and expertise. He was also integrated into the business: he attended staff meetings, used the respondent's email and IT systems, and was given instructions on what courses to develop and deliver. The respondent also exercised control over his work, even though he was a specialist who did not need day-to-day supervision.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent argued that the claimant was self-employed, but the tribunal found that the evidence did not support this. The unsigned contract stated he was a contractor, but the actual working relationship pointed strongly towards employment. If the respondent had wanted to engage the claimant on a self-employed basis, they would have needed to ensure that the reality matched the label—for example, by allowing him to send substitutes, giving him more control over his work schedule, and not integrating him into the business as an employee.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will carefully examine the day-to-day reality of a working relationship, not just the paperwork. For individuals who are unsure about their employment status, factors such as personal service, control, integration, and mutuality of obligations are key. The case also highlights that an unsigned contract is not definitive—especially if the parties' conduct tells a different story. The claimant's case will now proceed to a final hearing where his claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other complaints will be considered.
Similar cases
Self-employed surveyor's employment claim struck out: no reasonable prospect of success
A chartered surveyor who worked for Clements Agency Limited for nearly 30 years on a self-employed basis had his claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination struck out. The tribunal found he had no reasonable prospect of proving he was an employee.
Property Operations Manager unable to bring employment claims after tribunal finds he was self-employed
A property operations manager who worked from home for a Dubai-based firm was found by the tribunal to be self-employed, not an employee or worker, meaning his claims could not proceed.
Primary school teacher found to be employee despite invoicing via limited company
A tribunal ruled that a teacher who invoiced via her limited company was an employee from September 2019, enabling her to pursue claims for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Self-employed quality management consultant fails to prove employment status for unfair dismissal claim
A self-employed consultant who worked for Shekinah Consultants Limited and Martec Limited was unable to establish he was an employee or worker, leading to the dismissal of his unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims.