Online Editor wins unfair dismissal claim after being treated as freelancer
An online editor who was paid a monthly retainer and subject to editorial control has been found to be an employee and unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £32,020.80 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employee-status
- #online-editor
- #monthly-retainer
- #viber-app
- #grievance
- #reinstatement-sought
- #costs-application-refused
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an Online Editor for the respondent from 13 February 2014 to 6 February 2020.
- The claimant was paid a monthly retainer of £1,000 (later £1,500, then back to £1,000) without invoices or tax deductions.
- The claimant was required to work hours determined by the respondent and was subject to editorial control.
- The claimant refused to install the Viber app on her personal phone as instructed.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's engagement on 6 February 2020, citing a drop in work quality and refusal to follow instructions.
- The tribunal found the claimant was an employee and was unfairly dismissed with no Polkey or contributory fault deduction.
Timeline
-
Engagement started
The claimant began working for the respondent as an Online Editor after an oral discussion with Ms Aloul.
-
Grievance submitted
The claimant sent a grievance letter complaining of bullying, harassment, victimisation, and race discrimination by Ms Aloul.
-
Grievance email sent
The claimant emailed Ms Sundram attaching her grievance complaint.
-
Claimant's email to Ms Aloul
The claimant stated she worked 55 hours a week and was shocked to be told she was not an employee.
-
Termination of engagement
Ms Sundram wrote to the claimant stating she was a freelancer and her services were no longer required.
-
Claimant's response
The claimant responded disputing the freelancer status and asserting her role managing the online website.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Employment Judge Nicolle held a hearing and found the claimant was an employee.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
The substantive hearing began before Employment Judge Lewis.
-
Judgment on merits
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, if so, whether her dismissal was unfair. It also considered whether reinstatement was practicable and whether any deductions should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee from 13 February 2014 to 6 February 2020, despite being paid a monthly retainer without tax deductions. She was unfairly dismissed after raising a grievance about bullying and harassment. The respondent failed to follow any disciplinary or dismissal procedure.
Compensation was awarded as follows:
- Basic award: £1,730.75
- Compensatory award: £17,999.80
- Total: £32,020.80 (including other sums)
No Polkey reduction or contributory fault deduction was applied.
Lessons & takeaways
- Being paid a flat monthly retainer without invoices or tax deductions can be a sign of employee status, even if the employer calls you a freelancer.
- If you are subject to editorial control and required to work set hours, you are likely an employee with unfair dismissal rights.
- Raising a grievance does not justify dismissal; employers must follow a fair procedure regardless of any concerns about performance or conduct.
- Employers should not ignore grievances or treat them as a reason to terminate the relationship without investigation.
When 'freelancer' is just a label
This case shows that how you are paid and controlled matters more than what your employer calls you. The claimant worked as an online editor for six years, receiving a monthly retainer that did not vary with work done. She was required to work hours set by the respondent and was subject to editorial control. The tribunal found she was an employee, not a freelancer, giving her the right to claim unfair dismissal.
A dismissal triggered by a grievance
The claimant raised a formal grievance about bullying and harassment. Instead of investigating, the respondent told her she was a freelancer and terminated her engagement, citing a drop in work quality and refusal to install the Viber app on her personal phone. The tribunal found this was a dismissal, and it was procedurally unfair because no proper process was followed.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent could have investigated the grievance properly, followed a fair disciplinary or capability procedure, and given the claimant a chance to respond to concerns. Instead, they treated her as a freelancer and dismissed her without notice or hearing. The tribunal also noted that the respondent did not call the editor-in-chief to give evidence, which weakened their case.
Why this matters for similar claims
For anyone working under a similar arrangement, this case reinforces that employment status depends on the reality of the working relationship, not the label. If you are paid a regular retainer, subject to control, and integrated into the business, you may have employee rights. Raising a grievance should not lead to dismissal; if it does, that dismissal is likely to be unfair.
Similar cases
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.