header-logo header-logo

Workers’ rights in the gig economy

14 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The “gig economy” has been dealt a second blow in the name of worker’s rights, after the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of a plumber at Pimlico Plumbers (PP).

Gary Smith was technically a self-employed contractor, who paid VAT and income tax on a self-employed basis, but worked solely for PP for six years. He hired a van bearing the company’s brand and was obliged under the agreement to work a minimum 40-hour, five-day week as well as various other contractual requirements. The company refused to let him switch to a three-day week after he had a heart attack.

Smith claimed he was entitled to worker’s rights. PP said Smith was hired on a self-employed basis, provided his own tools and was able to earn more (£80,000 in one year) as a result.

In Pimlico Plumbers v Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51, the court upheld an earlier employment tribunal (ET) ruling that the plumbers were workers within the meaning of s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, although not employees. They were therefore entitled to basic rights such as paid holiday and the right to bring discrimination claims.

Delivering his judgment, Sir Terence Etherton said the employment tribunal had been right to reject PP’s submission that Smith had an unfettered right of substitution and to conclude “that the degree of control exercised by PP over Mr Smith… was also inconsistent with PP being a customer or client of a business run by Mr Smith. In particular, the ET was entitled and right to place weight on the onerous restrictive covenants… [which included] precluding Mr Smith from working as a plumber in any part of Greater London for three months after the termination of the [agreement]”.

Natalie Razeen, associate at Russell-Cooke, said: “This latest decision again suggests that courts are alive to the inequality of bargaining power faced by individuals in these circumstances. This serves as yet another reminder to employers that they should consider the question of employment or worker status carefully.”

The case comes hot on the heels of the Uber ruling in October 2016, in which an employment tribunal held that Uber drivers are “workers” not self-employed contractors.

In November, the government launched a review into workers’ rights in the “gig economy”, where Uber drivers, Deliveroo cyclists and other workers earn money on a casual basis. 

Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll