Remote support technician wins employee status and £15,758 after dismissal
A tribunal found that a remote support technician was an employee, not self-employed, and awarded £15,758.74 for unfair dismissal, including a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS code.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a Remote Support Technician from 30 January 2018 to 22 February 2021.
- The respondent did not provide a written contract or section 1 statement.
- The claimant was required to work personally, clock in and out, and follow a rota.
- The claimant was integrated into the team and treated no differently from employees.
- The tribunal found the claimant was an employee, not self-employed.
- The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 25% uplift.
Timeline
-
Meeting to discuss employment
The claimant met with Mr Moroney, Hugh Coles, and Junaid Baldick; it was agreed she would start work on 30 January 2018.
-
Start of employment
The claimant began working as a Remote Support Technician for the respondent.
-
Handbook provided
The respondent provided a handbook to the claimant, but claimed some provisions did not apply to her.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment was terminated by the respondent.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation with ACAS began.
-
Early conciliation ended
Early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing (part 1)
Employment Judge Matthews heard evidence on employment status; adjourned part-heard.
-
Preliminary hearing (part 2) and judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was an employee; judgment sent on 25 September 2022.
-
Remedy hearing
Judge Cowx awarded £15,758.74 for unfair dismissal, plus other sums.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, based on the reality of the working relationship rather than the label given by the employer.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee and had been unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were that she was required to work personally, clock in and out, follow a rota, and was treated no differently from employees. The respondent failed to provide a written contract or section 1 statement.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,993.86
- Compensatory award: £13,764.88
- Total: £15,758.74 (including a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers cannot simply label a worker as self-employed if the reality of the working relationship shows they are an employee.
- Requiring workers to clock in and out, follow a rota, and be integrated into the team are strong indicators of employee status.
- Failing to provide a written contract or section 1 statement can weaken an employer's case on employment status.
- Ignoring the ACAS Code of Practice can lead to a 25% uplift in compensation for unfair dismissal.
A label that didn't match reality
A remote support technician who worked for CA Technical Software Ltd t/a Computer Assistance was told she was self-employed. But when her employment ended, she brought claims for unfair dismissal and other breaches. The tribunal looked beyond the label and examined how the relationship actually worked.
The technician was required to clock in and out, follow a rota, and work personally. She was integrated into the team and treated no differently from employees. The tribunal found that these factors made her an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996, regardless of what the employer called her.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent did not provide a written contract or a section 1 statement, which would have clarified the terms. More importantly, they failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice when dismissing the technician, leading to a 25% uplift in compensation. A fair process and proper documentation could have avoided this outcome.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment status is determined by the reality of the working relationship, not by a label. For workers in similar situations, it shows that being required to work personally and follow employer controls can be strong evidence of employee status. The award of £15,758.74, including the uplift, underscores the cost of getting this wrong.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing dismissal and multiple breaches: former employee awarded over £13,000
A former employee who was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing and subjected to multiple breaches including unpaid holiday pay and unauthorised deductions has been awarded £13,117.36 by an employment tribunal.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
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.
Age-related harassment and unpaid wages: former employee awarded £37,873
A former employee was awarded over £37,000 after colleagues repeatedly called him 'old man' and 'grandpa', and the company made unauthorised deductions from his wages and failed to pay holiday pay.