Another decision labelling an individual as a worker rather than self-employed

Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Charlie Mullins v Gary Smith

The Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed an appeal by Pimlico Plumbers by upholding that one of their plumbers, Mr Smith, is a worker rather than a self-employed contractor, entitling him to workers’ rights.

Mr Smith originally brought the case at the Employment Tribunal (ET) in 2012. He claimed unfair dismissal from Pimlico after he suffered a heart attack and had his contract terminated. He had worked solely for the Company from August 2005 to April 2011.

Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 stipulates that a worker is an individual who works under a contract whereby they undertake to do or personally perform work for another who is not a client or customer. It was held that the measures actually outlined in his employment agreement indicated Mr Smith was a worker. This is important in terms of the rights Mr Smith is entitled to during his employment. Being categorised as a worker means that he will be benefit from the national minimum wage, protection from discrimination and holiday and sick pay. Under a self-employed status, Mr Smith would not be entitled to enjoy such rights and would only benefit from different tax treatment and the flexibility of working for himself.

An agreement created between the parties in 2005 stated that Mr Smith would be required to wear a uniform, operate a van bearing a Pimlico logo, work a 40-hour minimum week and liaise with the Company regarding annual leave. This agreement was amended in 2009 outlining similar terms in more detail and did not suggest that the 2005 agreement was no longer applicable.

The CA maintained that Mr Smith was a worker because he provided work personally for Pimlico, he was obliged to work a set number of hours on agreed days, and there was a high degree of restriction on his ability to work for a competitive company suggesting that he was not in business on his own account. However, Mr Smith lost the unfair dismissal element of the claim owing to the fact that he was found not to be an employee.

Although there was comment by the CA that this case was not “entirely straightforward", it is likely to be a leading case on employment status in future years. Importantly, a clear summary of the principles for the 'personal service' aspect of the employment status tests was given.

This decision has highlighted the need for legal clarity around the status of those working on a self-employed basis in the gig economy and it shows that Tribunals and Courts are willing to look beyond the labels that businesses choose to provide their staff, and consider the true reality of the working relationship.

This case follows a rise of similar cases evolving out of the flexible business models adopted by the gig economy, including Uber, CitySprint and Deliveroo. It seems that courts are aware of the inequality of bargaining power faced by individuals in these circumstances and the CA decision in Mr Smith’s case will certainly be relevant to the upcoming EAT appeal by Uber and to all other gig economy employment status cases currently in the spotlight.

Employers are therefore reminded that they should be careful when considering the question of status for individuals who work for them. 

CONTACT CHRIS

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798089.

© SA LAW 2020

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs. This firm also does not…
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
FAQs Furloughing Employees / Job Retention Scheme

Frequently asked questions on Furloughing Employees to help employers, line managers and employees – answered by SA Law’s employment team.

Read More
SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
Data protection and school photographs

ICO shares guidance following two schools being reprimanded for distributing photographs of pupils without parents’ consent.

Read More
Views & Insights
Measures to help self-employed in light of Covid-19

Christine Caffrey explains the UK government’s measures to assist the five million self employed people in the UK through business disruption due to corona…

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Views & Insights
Further guidance on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Key points need to know about the the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, more commonly known as the Furlough Scheme.

Read More
Views & Insights
SA Law's Guide to Working from Home

As the outbreak of coronavirus continues and as society adapts to its challenges there has been a massive increase in employees working from home. Read…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Measures to help SMEs keep trading during Covid-19 outbreak

Read Keely Rushmore’s comments in the Financial Times

Read More
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Views & Insights
Changes to off-payroll working (IR35)

In April 2020 the “off-payroll working” or IR35 rules are due to be extended to the private sector, affecting medium and large organisations in all sectors.…

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners