Claimant v 3D Personnel Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee or worker of the first respondent but was employed by the second respondent (umbrella company). The documentary evidence and contractual arrangements clearly established the second respondent as the employer, and there was no express or implied contract between the claimant and the first respondent that would support worker or employee status.
The holiday pay claim against the first respondent failed for the same reason as the wages claim: the tribunal determined the claimant was not an employee or worker of the first respondent. The claimant had a contract of employment with the second respondent which contained holiday pay provisions, making the second respondent the proper respondent for any holiday pay claims.
Facts
The claimant worked as a labourer for approximately two weeks from 27 June to 10 July 2024 in the construction industry. He was placed through the first respondent (an employment agency) but signed a contract of employment with the second respondent (an umbrella company). The claimant brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay, arguing he was employed by the first respondent. The preliminary hearing determined who the claimant's employer was.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of the second respondent only, not the first respondent. The documentary evidence, including the contract of employment, P45, and payslips, all pointed to the second respondent as employer. There was no express or implied contract between the claimant and the first respondent that would establish employee or worker status. The claims against the first respondent were dismissed.
Practical note
In tripartite agency/umbrella arrangements, tribunals will scrutinise the contractual documents and actual arrangements to determine employer identity, and clear written contracts superseding earlier preliminary arrangements will be determinative absent evidence of sham or that the reality differs from documentation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2223320/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- labourer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No