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.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: Updated Guidance on Flexible Furloughing

Under the flexible furlough scheme, employees can work for some of the week and be furloughed for the rest, in proportions decided between employee and…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: Key changes between July – October 2020

Keely explores the key changes to the Covid-19 related furloughing that are set to impact employers and employees between July-October 2020.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Direction and Extended Deadline

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme will be extended to 30 June 2020, plus The Treasury has also issued a Direction to HMRC which provides legally binding…

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
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
COVID-19 Right to Work Checks Adjustment

Adjustments made to Right to Work Checks process for employers during COVID-19.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Updated Furlough Guidance provides clarification for employers

Over the weekend the government updated its guidance for employers on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) - Keely Rushmore reports.

Read More
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
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.