Site supervisor found to be employee despite signing self-employed contracts with agencies
A tribunal ruled that a site supervisor who signed self-employed contracts with two agencies was in fact an employee of the end-user, Flexwood Windows Ltd, and awarded over £28,800 for unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employee-status
- #sham-arrangement
- #agency-worker
- #implied-contract
- #integration
- #control
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a site supervisor for the respondent from 2016 until 31 May 2019.
- The claimant signed contracts with NPS Services Ltd and later ATL, which described him as self-employed.
- The tribunal found that the contractual terms did not reflect the reality of the working relationship.
- The respondent exercised significant control over the claimant's work and required his personal service.
- The claimant was integrated into the respondent's business, provided with a company email and laptop, and held out as an employee to clients.
- The respondent did not pay the claimant notice pay, holiday pay, or other sums due on termination.
Timeline
-
Signed contract with NPS
The claimant signed a self-employed contract with NPS Services Ltd to provide services to the respondent.
-
NPS contract ended
The respondent's contract with NPS ended and the claimant was asked to register with ATL.
-
Signed contract with ATL
The claimant signed a self-employed contract with ATL to continue working for the respondent.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's relationship with the respondent was terminated without notice.
-
Preliminary hearing (status)
Employment Judge McLaren heard evidence on the claimant's employment status.
-
Preliminary hearing continued
Further evidence and submissions on the status issue.
-
Judgment on status
Employment Judge McLaren found the claimant was an employee.
-
Remedy hearing
Employment Judge Feeny heard the remedy hearing; respondent did not attend.
-
Final judgment
Employment Judge Feeny issued the corrected judgment awarding compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of Flexwood Windows Ltd, a worker, or self-employed, despite having signed contracts with two different agencies that described him as self-employed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of Flexwood Windows Ltd and therefore entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
Key reasons:
- The respondent exercised significant control over the claimant's work, including directing his daily tasks and requiring him to work on specific sites.
- The claimant was required to provide personal service and could not send a substitute.
- He was integrated into the respondent's business, provided with a company email and laptop, and held out as an employee to clients.
- The written contracts with NPS and ATL did not reflect the reality of the working relationship.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £2,362.50
- Compensatory award: £8,285.00
- Total: £28,803.75 (including other sums such as notice pay and holiday pay)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work under an agency or self-employed contract but are closely controlled and integrated into a business, you may still be an employee in law.
- Tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship, not just the written contract, when determining employment status.
- Being provided with company equipment, email, and being held out as an employee to clients are strong indicators of employee status.
- Employers cannot avoid employment law obligations simply by using agency intermediaries if they retain significant control over the worker.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how tribunals will look behind written contracts to determine the true nature of a working relationship. The claimant, a site supervisor for a window fitting company, had signed contracts with two different agencies that described him as self-employed. However, in practice, the respondent exercised significant control over his work, required him to provide personal service, and integrated him into its business by providing a company email, laptop, and holding him out as an employee to clients.
What the losing side could have done differently
Flexwood Windows Ltd could have avoided this outcome by ensuring that the contractual arrangements matched the reality of the relationship. If they wanted to use agency workers, they should have given the agencies genuine control over the workers' day-to-day activities and allowed substitution. Instead, they treated the claimant as an integral part of their business, which led the tribunal to find an implied contract of employment.
Why this result matters
This decision serves as a warning to businesses that rely on agency or self-employed arrangements to avoid employment law obligations. The tribunal's focus on the reality of the relationship means that employers cannot simply rely on paperwork to avoid liability for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay. For workers in similar situations, it demonstrates that the law will protect them if they are in fact employees, regardless of what their contract says.
Similar cases
Sole director and shareholder fails to prove employee status for National Insurance Fund claim
A design co-ordinator who was the sole director and shareholder of her own company could not claim redundancy or other payments from the National Insurance Fund because she was not an employee. The tribunal dismissed her claims.
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Marketing agent through own company lacked two years' service for unfair dismissal claim
A former employee who worked through his own company before becoming an employee had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' continuous service as an employee.
Agency worker unable to claim unfair dismissal against NHS trust: no implied contract
An agency worker who spent nearly three years at an NHS trust was unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim because the tribunal found no implied employment contract existed. The claim was dismissed.