Dismissed via Zoom and told he was a contractor: tribunal finds employee status
A Business Development Director who was summarily dismissed on a Zoom call and told he was a contractor has won nearly £293,000 after a tribunal ruled he was an employee and unfairly dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #commission-non-payment
- #age-discrimination
- #whistleblowing
- #acas-code-uplift
- #inadequate-disclosure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Business Development Director from 24 April 2015 until 22 December 2020.
- The respondent reduced the claimant's pay to one day per week during the COVID-19 lockdown without agreement.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed via a Zoom call on 22 December 2020, told he was a contractor.
- The respondent failed to pay commission due on accounts brought in by the claimant.
- The respondent did not provide a written statement of employment particulars.
Timeline
-
Contract signed
The claimant signed a contract of employment with Travelliance Inc while in Minneapolis.
-
Employment started
The claimant began work as Business Development Manager.
-
Virgin contract negotiated
The claimant negotiated a five-year contract with Virgin airlines for disrupted passenger accommodation.
-
First commission payment
The claimant received his first commission payment of £1,666.10.
-
Second commission payment
The claimant received a partial commission payment of £797.53.
-
Third commission payment
The claimant received commission of £3,145 for Oman hotels.
-
Fourth commission payment
The claimant received £7,358.04 in commission from Oman, ASL, and TAAG Angola.
-
Pay reduced during lockdown
The respondent unilaterally reduced the claimant's pay to one day per week.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was dismissed via a Zoom call, told he was a contractor.
-
New employment started
The claimant started a new job with Hotel Reservations Service Ltd at £72,000 per year.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee, worker, or self-employed contractor, and whether he was unfairly dismissed, suffered unlawful deductions, age discrimination, or detriment for whistleblowing.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of Travelliance Inc and was unfairly dismissed. The respondent had unilaterally reduced his pay during lockdown and then dismissed him via Zoom, claiming he was a contractor. The tribunal rejected the respondent's arguments and awarded substantial compensation.
- Total compensation: £292,790.23
- The award includes compensation for unfair dismissal and unpaid commission, though a full breakdown was not provided in the judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment status is determined by the reality of the working relationship, not by labels in a contract.
- Unilateral pay cuts and summary dismissals without proper process are likely to be found unfair.
- Claimants should gather evidence of control, mutuality of obligation, and other employment indicators.
- Even if a contract says 'consultant', a tribunal can find employee status if the facts support it.
This case shows how a company's attempt to reclassify a long-serving employee as a contractor can backfire spectacularly. The Business Development Director had worked for Travelliance Inc for over five years, bringing in major accounts like Virgin airlines. During the pandemic, the company cut his pay to one day a week without agreement, and then dismissed him on a Zoom call, telling him he was a contractor. The tribunal found this was not just unfair dismissal but a fundamental breach of employment rights.
What went wrong for Travelliance
The company's key mistake was treating the claimant as a contractor after years of employing him. The original contract offered 'employment' with a salary, and the claimant never agreed to become a consultant. The unilateral pay cut and summary dismissal showed a disregard for basic employment protections. The tribunal also noted the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment and did not follow any disciplinary or redundancy process.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment status is not determined by what a contract says, but by the reality of the working relationship. Factors like control, mutuality of obligation, and integration into the business are key. For employees, it shows the importance of keeping evidence of how you work – emails, contracts, and pay records. For employers, it warns against trying to reclassify employees as contractors to avoid responsibilities. The substantial award reflects the seriousness of the failures.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.
Geophysicist awarded £340k after being pushed out for younger staff
A 62-year-old Leading Project Geophysicist was unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination after the company's majority shareholder repeatedly called for his replacement with younger employees. The Reading tribunal awarded £340,212.80.