Worker versus Self-Employed

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd versus Smith

This recent ruling by the Supreme Court highlights the perennial difficulties that parties face in determining the legal status of an individual for employment law purposes.

The Supreme Court upheld judgments of an employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in deciding that Mr Smith, a plumber who had been engaged for Pimlico Plumbers for approximately five and a half years, was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998.

This finding was despite Mr Smith’s contract labelling him as an independent contractor. This illustrates that the courts can and will disregard the express terms of a contract if it is clear that the parties do not operate in accordance with them (see the 2011 decision of Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher). Courts will scratch below the contractual surface and any opportune labels contained therein in order to ascertain the reality of an employment relationship.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court based its decision on, among other things, the following key factors:

  1. Personal service was a dominant feature of Mr Smith’s contract and the right to substitute was fettered to such an extent as to not be worthy of recognition.
  2. Mr Smith was required to drive a Pimlico Plumber branded van, wear a Pimlico Plumber uniform and carry a Pimlico Plumber identity card.
  3. There was an obligation on Mr Smith to work a minimum of forty hours per week.
  4. Mr Smith’s contract contained restrictive covenants that effectively precluded him from working as a plumber in the Greater London area for three months following termination.

The overall picture clearly illustrated that Pimlico Plumbers exercised tight control over Mr Smith and pointed away from him being a truly independent contractor.

Concerns have been voiced that this decision, being binding on the lower courts, will have huge ramifications for the gig economy with many more so-called independent contractors demanding employment rights. However, this viewpoint fails to recognise that the decision, as with many employment status cases, is highly fact-sensitive and is, therefore, unlikely to have much precedent value.

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.
The team at SA Law LLP has ‘excellent knowledge of employment law’. Practice head Chris Cook is recommended.
The Legal 500
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Justifying 'fat cat' pay

Partner, Keely Rushmore examines what the pay ratio reporting could mean for your company

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should The Equalities Act 2010 be updated?

Chris Cook, partner and head of employment at SA Law, comments on a recent study which found that one in three employers admitted they were less likely…

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should employers modify dress codes in this heatwave?

Partner and Director of Finance and Business support, Gill Garrett, comments in The Times on whether extreme weather should see alterations to dress codes…

Read More
Chris Cook handles the full range of employment law for both individuals and organisations. He receives particular recognition for his strong TUPE expertise.…
Chambers & Partners
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Getting to the meat of employee choice

Companies must be made aware of discrimination laws when dictating what workers can and can't do, says Keely Rushmore, Partner at SA Law.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Reality TV and the protection of stars' welfare

Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook comments in The Daily Star on the increasing pressure for production companies to ensure the welfare of contestants.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
The Government's guidance on The Trade Union Act 2016

How should employers' implement the Trade Union Act 2016? Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook explains.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Dress codes and sex discrimination - The Government's response

Read Head of Employment, Chris Cook's analysis of the Government's response to the 2015 Nicola Thorp "wear heels or go home" controversy.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
To ban, or not to ban social media? That is the question

Employment Partner, Keely Rushmore writes for City A.M.

Read More

© SA LAW 2018

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.