Claimant v City Site Solutions Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 despite the contractual terms stating otherwise. The contract did not reflect the reality: he had limited bargaining power, worked standard hours for extended periods, was subject to supervision and control on site, the right of substitution was significantly fettered and not exercised in practice, and he was paid PAYE with payslips. He was entitled to holiday pay which had not been paid.
The Claimant alleged he was refused payment under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) because of his Ukrainian nationality. The tribunal accepted the Respondents' evidence that labourers subject to supervision, direction or control were not eligible for CIS payment, unlike site managers. The Claimant could not identify a comparator (he recalled someone from the UK paid under CIS but could not remember their name). The tribunal found the reason for treatment was the Claimant's role and level of control, not his nationality.
Facts
The Claimant, a Ukrainian national, worked as a building labourer on various construction sites from January to October 2023. He was engaged through Rocket PAYE Ltd (an umbrella company) and supplied to City Site Solutions Ltd. He worked regular hours (often 54 or 45 hours per week for extended periods), was paid PAYE, and was subject to supervision and control on site. The written contract described him as self-employed with a right to substitute, but this did not reflect reality. He was refused payment under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) because he was a labourer subject to supervision. He claimed unpaid holiday pay and alleged race discrimination based on his Ukrainian nationality.
Decision
The tribunal found all claims against the First Respondent (City Site Solutions) were dismissed. Against the Second Respondent (Rocket PAYE), the tribunal found the Claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA despite contractual terms to the contrary, because the contract did not reflect the practical reality of supervision, control, regular hours, and limited substitution rights. He succeeded in his holiday pay claim. However, his race discrimination claim failed because the tribunal accepted the Respondents' evidence that the reason for refusing CIS payment was his role as a supervised labourer, not his Ukrainian nationality.
Practical note
Written contractual terms purporting to create self-employed status will not prevent a finding of worker status where the practical reality involves supervision, control, regular hours, and no genuine right of substitution, particularly in the context of labour supply through umbrella companies in the construction industry.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216430/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Building labourer
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No