When does organisational embedding point to employment?

In Deliveroo, the Supreme Court identified the embedding of both the work and the person performing it in the client’s organisation and business operations as relevant to employment classification. 

It helps to distinguish two questions. How does the work fit into the business? And how is the person positioned within its working arrangements? These are practical questions within the overall assessment, not separate statutory tests. 

Work may form part of a client’s ordinary operations. The person may also participate in its staffing arrangements, reporting lines and internal management. Those facts can be relevant, particularly where the client can direct performance in the same way as it directs employees. 

There is no single universally accepted definition that resolves every case. The Tax Administration’s framework expressly includes the extent to which the work and service provider form part of the client’s organisation.

Deliveroo: organisational context mattered within the whole assessment. The Supreme Court upheld employment status in 2023. Flexibility about working and substitution did not prevent that outcome. The judgment does not establish that performing work connected with a client’s core business automatically creates employment. 

Uber: no fixed hierarchy between circumstances. The Supreme Court’s 21 February 2025 judgment confirmed that entrepreneurship, including activity outside the relationship being assessed, has no subordinate position. It can be decisive in a particular case. The judgment did not abolish embedding or assign every circumstance the same weight. 

Staan/PotatoNext: reporting was not sufficient evidence of employment authority. In the 5 March 2026 judgment, a financial controller worked through Staan on a project at PotatoNext. The court found no employment contract with either company. It considered weekly progress reporting compatible with independent project performance and found the allegations about further instructions insufficiently substantiated.

These arrangements can be relevant, but none answers the employment question automatically. 

Meetings and reporting. Distinguish coordination needed for the service from compulsory participation in the client’s staff-management processes. Examine who sets priorities, assigns tasks, evaluates personal performance and can impose consequences. 

Time and location. A service may require attendance at a site or at agreed times. Record the reason and the actual scheduling freedom. An agreed appointment differs from a broad power to roster the professional as part of the workforce. 

Systems and equipment. A client email address, secure laptop or access to a production system may serve a technical or security purpose. Explain that purpose and examine whether the system also directs or monitors performance. 

Comparable employees. Similar work can support a closer examination of the relationship. It does not automatically establish identical legal status. Compare the actual rights, obligations, supervision and commercial responsibilities. 

Social contact. An invitation to a social event or a seasonal gift is not an automatic employment test. Equally, excluding freelancers from social events does not cure managerial control over their work. 

As of 3 November 2026, the Zelfstandigenwet remains a proposal. It seeks to clarify when work can be performed independently through a self-employment test and a work-relationship test. 

The October 2026 explanatory memorandum, section 5.4, does not introduce embedding as a separate criterion. It explains that relevant aspects are reflected in working freedom and work for one’s own account and risk. 

The proposed work-relationship test addresses the parties’ intention, freedom to organise performance, freedom concerning working times and location, and working for one’s own account and risk. This differs from saying that organisational authority is irrelevant. 

The memorandum also discusses internal meetings, instructions and comparison with employees. Those arrangements still need substantive examination.

Describe the service. Identify the work, intended outputs, duration, responsibilities and boundaries. Explain whether the professional supplies a defined service or fills an ongoing organisational role. 

Map decision-making. Record who determines methods, priorities, scheduling and the response to additional work. Distinguish client acceptance of an output from supervision of personal performance. 

Explain coordination requirements. Document the purpose and scope of required meetings, site attendance, systems and protocols. A written explanation should match what happens in practice. 

Record commercial responsibilities. Retain relevant evidence of negotiations, pricing, liability, correction of defective work and wider business activity. An insurance policy or fixed fee alone does not establish independence. 

Review changes. Reassess extensions, new reporting lines, routine staff cover or a shift from project delivery to daily task allocation. If the actual arrangement requires employment, changing its label is insufficient. 

Use an FMS accurately. Where supported by the configured Zooly environment or another system, retain the agreement, supporting records, material changes and dated reviews. A personal vault can organise evidence; broker verification should state which facts were checked and any remaining uncertainty.