Commission-only worker wins unpaid commission claim against Member Benefits Limited
A business development manager who worked on a commission-only basis has been awarded £1,214.50 in unpaid commission after the tribunal found she was a worker, not an employee.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #worker-status
- #commission-only
- #unpaid-commission
- #travel-expenses-excluded
- #no-witness-statements
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a business development manager selling advertising space on a commission-only basis.
- The claimant signed an agreement on 24 May 2021 providing for 25% commission plus an additional 5% on completion.
- The claimant invoiced the respondent for commissions totalling £1214.50, which remained unpaid.
- The respondent failed to provide a financial reconciliation of amounts due.
- The claimant was found to be a worker, not an employee, and lacked service for an unfair dismissal claim.
Timeline
-
Training commenced
The claimant trained with Derek Bowen for four days at David Lloyds Clubs in Purley.
-
Agreement signed
The claimant and Derek Bowen signed the agreement setting out commission terms.
-
First payment received
The claimant received £500, which she said was for travel expenses.
-
Second payment received
The claimant received £500.
-
Third payment received
The claimant received £481.
-
Claimant requested reimbursement
The claimant texted Derek Bowen seeking £227.04 for travel and entertainment expenses.
-
Verbal agreement to pay expenses
Derek Bowen agreed verbally to reimburse £200 for travel expenses and pay remaining commission.
-
Text about payment
Mr Bowen texted that he had sent money, but the claimant's invoices remained unpaid.
-
Claimant contracted Covid-19
The claimant contracted Covid-19 and worked from home, but did not contact clients for payments.
-
Respondent's admin texted about invoice details
Alex from the respondent's administration said details for the invoice would be provided once total payable commission was tracked down.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was a worker or an employee, and whether she was owed unpaid commission and travel expenses.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, not an employee. As a worker, she was entitled to claim unpaid commission but not unfair dismissal (which requires employee status and two years' service).
The respondent failed to provide a financial reconciliation of the commission due, and the tribunal accepted the claimant's invoices as evidence of the amount owed. The claim for travel expenses was dismissed because such payments are excluded from the definition of wages under section 27(2)(b) of the Act.
Compensation breakdown:
- Unpaid commission: £1,214.50
Lessons & takeaways
- Commission-only workers can still be 'workers' with legal rights to claim unpaid wages, even if they are not employees.
- Keep detailed invoices and records of work done to prove entitlement to commission if the employer fails to provide accounts.
- Travel expenses are not recoverable as wages under employment law unless they are part of contractual pay.
- Unfair dismissal claims require employee status and at least two years' continuous service – workers without that status cannot bring such claims.
A commission-only role with no safety net
The claimant took on a role as a business development manager for Member Benefits Limited, selling advertising space in a magazine distributed at David Lloyd Clubs. The agreement promised 25% commission on sales, with an additional 5% on completion of each issue. But when she invoiced for work done, the payments stopped.
The tribunal heard that the claimant received three payments totalling £1,481 between June and July 2021, but further invoices for £1,214.50 went unpaid. The respondent did not provide a reconciliation of the amounts due, leaving the tribunal to rely on the claimant's invoices.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent's failure to keep proper records or respond to the claimant's invoices made it difficult to challenge the amounts claimed. A simple accounting of sales and commissions would have allowed the tribunal to assess the claim more accurately. Instead, the lack of evidence meant the tribunal accepted the claimant's figures.
Why the result matters
This case highlights that commission-only workers are not necessarily self-employed contractors. The tribunal found the claimant was a 'worker' under the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving her the right to claim unpaid wages. However, it also shows the limits of that status: workers cannot claim unfair dismissal, and travel expenses are not recoverable as wages.
For anyone in a similar position, the key takeaway is to keep clear records of invoices and communications. Without them, proving entitlement to commission can be difficult – but with them, even a worker without employee status can enforce their right to be paid.
Similar cases
Business consultant wins £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday and notice pay but loses discrimination claim
A business consultant who was refused homeworking after training has won £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday pay and notice pay, but her claim of associative disability discrimination was dismissed.
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.