Project Manager with 2 months' service found to be a worker, not an employee
A tribunal ruled that a Project Manager who worked for just two months at Phoenix Social Enterprise Ltd was a worker, not an employee, meaning she can claim unpaid wages and holiday pay but not unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #project-manager
- #social-enterprise
- #casual-approach
- #timesheet
- #personal-service
- #substitution
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a Project Manager for the respondent from 3 May 2022 to 4 July 2022.
- The respondent had a flexible and casual approach to documenting employment status.
- The claimant was not provided with a written contract or any formal documentation of her terms.
- The claimant was required to provide personal service and could not appoint a substitute.
- The claimant was largely autonomous in how she delivered the project outputs.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's services on 4 July 2022.
Timeline
-
Interview
The claimant attended an interview with Mrs Williams-McLarty. Agreement was reached that she would be a Project Manager on the Chimes project, paid a day rate, and would complete timesheets.
-
Second meeting
The claimant confirmed interest. No discussion on employment status. The claimant asked about tax and national insurance but received no clear answer.
-
Alleged offer letter
The claimant claimed the respondent sent a draft offer letter; the tribunal found the letter was not sent by the respondent.
-
Timesheet sent
The respondent sent the claimant a blank timesheet and dissemination plan.
-
Advance payment
The respondent paid the claimant an advance of £1,193 for 5 days' work in May.
-
Performance concerns
Mrs Williams-McLarty emailed the claimant listing 8 points of dissatisfaction with her performance.
-
Discussion on performance
The claimant and Mrs Williams-McLarty discussed the performance concerns via WhatsApp.
-
Partners meeting
The claimant attended a meeting with other partners; Mrs Williams-McLarty praised her performance.
-
June timesheet submitted
The claimant submitted her June timesheet showing approximately 5 days' work.
-
Dispute over timesheet
Mrs Williams-McLarty emailed the claimant disputing the hours claimed and asking for a reworked timesheet.
-
Termination
The respondent terminated the claimant's services.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee, a worker, or self-employed during her short period working as a Project Manager for a social enterprise. This status determines which employment rights she is entitled to, such as unfair dismissal protection (employees only) or the right to unpaid wages and holiday pay (workers).
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was a worker but not an employee. This means she cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, but she can pursue claims for unlawful deductions from wages, accrued holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars and itemised pay slips.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was required to provide personal service and could not send a substitute, which pointed to worker status.
- However, there was no mutuality of obligation beyond each assignment, and the respondent had a flexible, casual approach to engagement, which meant she was not an employee.
- The lack of a written contract and the short duration also supported the finding that she was not an employee.
No compensation has been awarded yet; a further hearing will determine the amounts for the successful worker claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if you work for a short period, you may still be a 'worker' and entitled to basic rights like minimum wage and holiday pay.
- If you are required to provide personal service and cannot send a substitute, you are likely a worker or employee, not genuinely self-employed.
- A casual approach to contracts and status by an employer can work against them in tribunal, but it may also prevent a finding of full employee status.
- Keep records of timesheets and communications about pay – they are crucial evidence in status disputes.
- If you are unsure of your employment status, seek advice early; the distinction affects which claims you can bring.
This case shows how employment status can be uncertain, especially in short-term, flexible working arrangements. The claimant worked as a Project Manager for just two months, managing a specific project. She had no written contract, was paid a day rate, and submitted timesheets. The respondent, a social enterprise, had a 'flexible and casual' approach to documenting status, which ultimately helped the tribunal decide she was not an employee.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal applied the standard tests: was there mutuality of obligation and sufficient control to make her an employee? It found that while the claimant had to do the work herself (no substitution), the engagement was too loose and short-term to create an employment relationship. There was no ongoing obligation to offer or accept work beyond the project. However, because she provided personal service, she was a 'worker' – a category that gives rights to unpaid wages and holiday pay but not unfair dismissal.
What could have been done differently
The respondent could have avoided the dispute by giving the claimant a clear written agreement stating her status from the start. Instead, the casual approach left the status ambiguous. For the claimant, the lack of a contract made it harder to prove employee status, but the personal service requirement was enough to secure worker rights.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that short service does not automatically mean no rights. Workers with even a few weeks' service can claim unpaid wages and holiday pay. But it also shows that to claim unfair dismissal, you usually need employee status, which requires a greater degree of ongoing obligation and control. Anyone in a similar flexible role should keep evidence of their work and pay, and seek advice if their status is unclear.
Similar cases
Working through a limited company? You may still be an employee
A tribunal ruled that a commissioning director with 24 years' service remained an employee even after switching to a consultancy agreement via his own limited company.
Primary school teacher found to be employee despite invoicing via limited company
A tribunal ruled that a teacher who invoiced via her limited company was an employee from September 2019, enabling her to pursue claims for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
School delivery driver and taxi driver: employment status settled before final hearing
A tribunal found that a school delivery driver was an employee for that role but only a worker for taxi work. The case settled before the final hearing, with no compensation awarded.
Franchisee driver's worker status claim struck out after binding precedent on substitution
A DPD franchisee driver who accepted his circumstances were identical to a previous case lost his worker status claim after the tribunal struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success.