Working as a Self-Employed Contractor? You Still Have Rights
- William Slivinsky
- 16 hours ago
- 8 min read
Are you working as a self-employed contractor and want to know your rights?
Consider these as a matter of law and your rights:
Being called self-employed does not mean you have no rights.
Being registered under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) does not mean you have no rights.
Sending invoices does not mean you are genuinely running your own independent business.
As a business legal adviser, I come across contracts, HR documents, and arguments that center around wrong assumptions for one core reason: to protect business and deprive "Self-Employed Contractors" of their rights for better revenue and fewer legal obligations.
If your business relies on subcontractors and templates, believing you are legally secure, consider reading these articles: Contract for Service Template and How Worker Status Can Affect Business Liability in Negligence
You are not alone: this is a common problem in the UK. Many workers are labelled as self-employed contractors or subcontractors, when the reality of the working relationship gives them legal protection.
The issue is not decided by the label written in the contract, agreed verbally or via email or WhatsApp. It is not decided by CIS registration. It is not decided by whether you submit invoices or whether tax is deducted as a subcontractor or you do a tax return as self-employed. That is a matter of taxes, not employment status, and your rights!
The real question is this:
Are you genuinely running your own business on your own account, or are you personally working as part of someone else’s business?
That question matters because a self-employed contractor or subcontractor who is wrongly classified can still have important employment law rights.
Those rights include:
the right to a written statement of employment particulars;
compensation of 2 to 4 weeks’ pay if written particulars were not provided and a successful relevant claim is brought;
holiday pay;
protection from unauthorised deductions from wages;
protection where money is withheld after a pay less notice or final account dispute;
National Minimum Wage protection;
discrimination protection;
health and safety protection;
whistleblowing protection;
contractual remedies where payment has been wrongly withheld.
I explain these rights in the second part of this article, where a payless notice issue becomes an unauthorized deduction and flips the table against the business.
Working as a Self-Employed Contractor
First, it is important to understand how tribunals decide whether someone is genuinely self-employed or legally protected as a worker. Continue reading.
The contract is not the final answer
Businesses often rely too heavily on paperwork.
They rely on self-employed contractor agreements, either written or oral. They rely on CIS registration. They rely on invoices. They rely on substitution clauses. They rely on the fact that holiday pay and sick pay were not mentioned. They rely on HR templates or legal advice that focuses too much on the wording of the contract and not enough on the reality of the working relationship.
That is where things go wrong.
This is not about blaming every business. Many contractors and business owners genuinely believe that if someone is CIS-registered, submits invoices, and signs a self-employed agreement, that is enough.
It is not.
Employment tribunals look at what is really happening.
In one case where I represented the claimant, Mr M Nowotnik, Employment Judge Brewer made an important comment about substitution clauses:
“A common drafting tactic adopted by those who want to avoid a contract giving rise to limb (b) worker status is to include a ‘substitution clause’ — i.e. a clause that ostensibly allows the work to be done by someone who is not a party to the contract. The intention is that such a clause negates the obligation to personally perform the work or services, thereby depriving the contract of an essential component of ‘worker’ status.”
This matters because many businesses believe a substitution clause is enough to stop someone being a worker. Full judgment can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699adfec9f2f510ba1d0ba23/Mr_M_Nowotnik_v_Cedar_Construction_Services_Limited_2601835.2024_Judgment.pdf
It is not.
A substitution clause only helps if it reflects the real relationship. If the business expects that particular individual to turn up and do the work personally, the clause does not automatically protect the business. A paper right to send someone else is not the same as a genuine right of substitution.
In Nowotnik, the claimant was CIS-registered.
He submitted tax returns.
He was not paid holiday pay or sick pay.
He was described as a subcontractor.
He was not guaranteed work every day.
Despite all of that, the Employment Tribunal found that he was a worker with rights to a written contract, holiday, protection from unauthorized deductions, minimum wages, and SSP.
That is the point many subcontractors and businesses miss.
A person can be treated as self-employed for tax purposes and still be a worker for employment law purposes.
Five things that do not automatically defeat worker status
The Nowotnik case is useful because it shows the type of facts a tribunal considers. These points are important for both workers and businesses.
1. CIS registration does not decide employment status
CIS is about tax.
It does not decide whether you have employment law rights.
A subcontractor can be CIS-registered, have tax deducted at source, submit a tax return, and still be a worker in employment law.
This is one of the most common misunderstandings in construction disputes. A business says, “You were CIS, so you were self-employed.” That is not the full legal answer.
The tribunal looks at the reality of the work, not only the tax arrangement.
2. No obligation to offer work every day does not decide the issue
A contractor does not have to promise work every day for worker status to exist.
If work is offered, accepted, performed personally, and paid for, that is enough to create a working relationship during that assignment or period of work.
So the argument “we did not have to give him work” is not the end of the matter.
The important question is what happened when work was offered and accepted.
If you accepted the work, attended site, followed instructions, and were paid for your labour, the tribunal looks at that reality.
3. Invoices do not prove you are running your own business
Sending invoices does not automatically mean you are genuinely self-employed.
Many workers send invoices because the contractor tells them to. Many subcontractors provide hours, days, or payment information so the contractor can process payment.
That does not prove they are operating an independent business.
The real question is whether you are genuinely in business on your own account.
Do you have your own clients?
Do you set your own prices?
Do you carry real financial risk?
Do you market your services independently?
Do you provide your own materials and organisation?
Or do you mainly rely on one contractor for work and income?
If your income depends on the contractor and you are personally providing labour as part of their business, invoices do not remove your rights.
4. A substitution clause must be real
A contract might say you can send a substitute.
That does not automatically defeat worker status.
The tribunal looks at whether the right is genuine.
Could you actually send someone else without needing approval?
Did it ever happen?
Would the contractor accept anyone suitable, or did they expect you personally?
There is a major difference between:
“You can genuinely send someone else to do the job for you”
and
“You can suggest someone if you are unavailable, but the contractor decides what happens.”
The first can point away from worker status.
The second often does not.
If the contractor wants your personal labour, the substitution clause is weak.
5. Being integrated into the contractor’s business supports worker status
If you work as part of the contractor’s team, on their projects, under their organisation, following their schedule, using their materials, tools, site arrangements, or instructions, that supports worker status.
The question is whether you are operating independently or whether you are part of the contractor’s business operation.
A genuine independent business normally works at arm’s length. It has its own customers, pricing, commercial risk, and business identity.
A worker is different.
A worker provides personal labour as part of someone else’s business.
That distinction is central.
A pay less notice can become an employment tribunal claim
Employment status is not just a technical legal argument. It can completely change the value and direction of a payment dispute. From my experience, a subcontractor does not look for a remedy unless he faces a legal or circumstantial issue.
In another case where I represented the claimant, Mr Robert Radosz, the dispute involved a pay less notice and a reduction of approximately £2,200 against the subcontractor. Award judgemnt can be found here:
On paper, the business treated it as a subcontractor payment issue.
But once the real working relationship was considered, the position changed.
The Employment Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to bring claims including:
unauthorised deductions from wages;
holiday pay;
compensation for failure to provide written particulars of employment.
Instead of the subcontractor being left with a deduction of around £2,200, the case resulted in an award of more than £4,000 in the claimant’s favour.
That is why employment status matters.
For subcontractors, a pay less notice or final payment deduction is not always the end of the matter. If the relationship shows worker status, the deduction can be challenged as an unauthorised deduction from wages.
For businesses, the risk is serious.
A dispute that appears to be about a subcontractor invoice can become an employment tribunal claim for worker rights, holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and written particulars compensation.
The paperwork does not decide the issue.
The pay less notice does not decide the issue.
The label “subcontractor” does not decide the issue.
The tribunal looks at the reality of the relationship.
Why this matters for workers and businesses
For workers, the wrong label can hide valuable rights.
You might be told:
“You are self-employed.”
“You are CIS.”
“You send invoices.”
“You signed the contract.”
“You are a subcontractor.”
None of those answers ends the legal question.
If the reality of the relationship shows that you personally worked as part of the contractor’s business, you have rights.
For businesses, the warning is equally important.
A self-employed contractor agreement is not enough.
A CIS arrangement is not enough.
A substitution clause is not enough.
A pay less notice is not enough.
A document prepared by HR or copied from a template is not enough.
The legal risk comes from the reality of the working relationship.
Many businesses are not trying to break the law. They simply rely too much on paperwork and not enough on how the relationship actually operates. That mistake becomes expensive when a payment dispute, dismissal, deduction, or holiday pay complaint reaches the Employment Tribunal.
The message is simple:
1.If you are working as a self-employed contractor, do not assume you have no rights, or
2.If you are a business engaging subcontractors, do not assume the paperwork protects you.
The law looks at what is really happening.
Need advice about your rights or your subcontractor arrangements?
Employment status is often misunderstood. A short written agreement, CIS registration, invoices, or a pay less notice can give the impression that the position is clear, but the real legal answer depends on how the relationship works in practice.
If you are working as a self-employed contractor or subcontractor and something does not feel right — unpaid holiday, deductions from pay, missing written terms, or a final payment dispute — you can get advice on whether you have worker rights.
If you are a business engaging subcontractors, you can also get advice on whether your contracts and working arrangements genuinely reflect a self-employed relationship, and what steps can reduce the risk of future disputes.
For clear, practical advice, contact me here:
Comments