A joiner has won a claim for holiday pay and deducted wages after an employment tribunal ruled he worked at a small contractor ─ even though he was not an employee.
Rivergate Developments Ltd, a family-run specialist contractor, was ordered to pay £665 in unlawfully deducted payments and £399 in missing holiday pay.
The decision came after the joiner successfully argued at an employment tribunal in Manchester that he had worked for ─ and was not a subcontractor of ─ the company.
The company said it had made the deductions from the claimant, known only as Mr K Brophy, due to poor workmanship that would need rectifying, adding that no holiday pay was made as Brophy was not an employee.
The court heard the claimant had worked at the company from 5 December 2024 until 27 January
2025.
Rivergate director Jonathan Cousins repeatedly told the tribunal that Brophy was registered with HMRC as being self-employed on the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).
But Judge Barker said that an individual’s tax status does not decide their employment status.
Instead, he said a range of factors suggested that Brophy had been a worker at the company, even if he was not technically an employee.
He compared the case to Uber drivers, who were found to be workers at Uber in a landmark Supreme Court case in 2021.
The judge pointed out Brophy’s job was full-time, with set hours; that the joiner had no input into the terms under which he worked; that he was provided with a “starter pack” he was expected to follow; and that his employer was displeased when he took an afternoon off.
He noted that Brophy was supervised on site, used materials supplied by Rivergate and was paid £95 per day worked, rather than by task completed. The joiner also lacked his own insurance and said he was never asked to obtain this.
He said there had been no discussion of whether Brophy could send a substitute in his place to carry out his work, and that there had been “no expectation… that this would ever be done by him”.
The judge said that as Brophy had been a worker at Rivergate Developments Ltd, he was protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and deductions from his pay were only legal with his written consent, which had not been obtained.
Brophy was also entitled to holiday, the judge said, having been obliged to take time off during the 2024/25 festive period when Rivergate Developments was closed.
“The CIS is not an indication of employment status, but of tax status,” Judge Barker said in his ruling.
“It is accepted that the claimant is not directly employed by the respondent and so is not an ‘employee’. However, CIS registration allows an individual to be either self-employed or a ‘worker’.
“The claimant was a worker. Save for his tax status, he was treated no differently from those who were directly employed by the respondent.
The claimant was a junior member of staff, and Cousins wanted to be able to subject him to a relatively high level of control.
“That is not compatible with him being self-employed.”
Read More
Will Ing