Recruitment assessor for College of Policing found to be a worker, not an employee
A recruitment assessor who claimed unfair dismissal lost his case after the tribunal ruled he was a worker, not an employee, because the College of Policing had no obligation to provide work and he could refuse assignments.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #worker-status
- #associate
- #recruitment-assessor
- #no-mutuality-of-obligation
- #no-control
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a recruitment assessor for the College of Policing.
- The claimant described himself as a worker in his ET1 claim form.
- The written terms and conditions described assessors as 'suppliers' and 'associates', not employees.
- The respondent had no obligation to provide work and the claimant could refuse assignments.
- The claimant worked for another company (Open Reach BT) during his engagement.
- The claimant received holiday pay as a percentage of pay but no sick pay.
Timeline
-
Letter about expense claims
The Chair of the Associates Governance Group wrote to the claimant concerning his expense claims.
-
Intention to hold Associate Review Panel
The respondent informed the claimant of an intention to hold an Associate Review Panel in response to his email.
-
Claimant's representations
The claimant emailed representations about expenses and payment timing.
-
Removal as associate
The respondent removed the claimant as an associate from the SA33 On-line Recruit pool.
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued his claim in the Watford Employment Tribunal.
-
Rule 21 judgment
Employment Judge Tobin issued a judgment that the claim succeeded on liability due to no response, with remedy to be determined.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Employment Judge Coll held a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's employment status.
-
Judgment on status
Employment Judge Coll found the claimant was a worker, not an employee, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or a worker, focusing on whether there was a contract of employment with sufficient control and mutuality of obligation.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was a worker, not an employee, and therefore his claims for unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal were dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The written terms described assessors as 'suppliers' and 'associates', not employees.
- The College had no obligation to provide work, and the claimant could refuse assignments.
- The claimant worked for another company (Open Reach BT) during his engagement, showing no exclusivity.
- The claimant received holiday pay as a percentage but no sick pay, consistent with worker status.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are an 'associate' or 'supplier' with no guaranteed work and the right to refuse assignments, you are likely a worker, not an employee.
- Working for other employers during an engagement can weaken a claim of employee status, as it shows no mutuality of obligation.
- Check your written terms carefully: labels like 'associate' or 'supplier' are strong evidence against employment.
- Holiday pay as a percentage of pay without sick pay is typical of worker status, not employee status.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employment status can determine the outcome of an unfair dismissal claim. The recruitment assessor worked for the College of Policing but was classified as an 'associate' under written terms that gave the College no obligation to provide work and allowed the assessor to refuse assignments. The tribunal found this arrangement lacked the 'irreducible minimum' of mutuality of obligation needed for employee status.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued he was an employee, but the evidence showed he worked for another company during his engagement and could turn down work. To succeed, he would have needed evidence of a consistent pattern of work being offered and accepted, or contractual terms that obliged the College to provide work. Without that, the tribunal had no choice but to find worker status.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that labels matter in employment status cases. If you are engaged as an 'associate' or 'supplier' with no guaranteed hours and the freedom to work for others, you are unlikely to be an employee. For anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim, the first step is to check whether you are an employee – if not, the claim will fail regardless of the merits.
Similar cases
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.
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
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.
Uber driver's unfair dismissal claim thrown out four years after termination
A former Uber driver who waited four years to bring an unfair dismissal claim had it dismissed as out of time. The tribunal ruled it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed within three months of his engagement ending.