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.

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
Diversity & equal opportunities in the media: New disclosure proposals for broadcasters explained

Keely Rushmore writes for leading HR publication People Management about the implications of broadcast employers revealing figures on gay and transsexual…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
A legal look ahead to 2020 policies

Following our recent HR Forum, our employment team look at the policies we expect to see in 2020.

Read More
SA Law View and Insights books
Views & Insights
Chambers & Partners adds to our good directory news for 2020

Glowing feedback from clients and peers across the board for SA Law's Family, Litigation, Real Estate & Employment teams in Chambers & Partners.

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 View and Insights books
Views & Insights
Success for SA Law in Legal 500 2020

We are delighted to share that we have held our position in all of our main practice areas in Legal 500.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Are teen influencers being exploited?

Keely Rushmore comments on BBC News about teen influencer Danielle Cohn: What are the employment laws for children under 18?

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Can you force someone to retire?

Gita Patel talks to Personnel Today about retirement policies following a number of recent challenges against Oxford University.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Welcoming Gita Patel to our employment team

We are delighted to welcome a new member of our Employment Team, Gita Patel.

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

© 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.