In recent newsletters we have reported with regards to rights which the Courts seem increasingly prepared to give to people who work for employers on a freelance basis.
The Uber cab drivers and City Sprint worker are two recent cases.
The Court of Appeal has recently held that a plumber who signed an agreement confirming that he was self employed was, in fact, entitled to some worker's rights.
Pimlico Plumbers employed Mr Smith from 2005 until 2011. The interesting facts of this case are that Mr Smith was required to wear Pimlico's uniform, use a van leased from Pimlico (with the company's logo) and work a minimum number of weekly hours. Under the terms of his contract Mr Smith could choose which job to take and which to decline and had to provide his own tools and equipment. Unsurprisingly as his contract described him as 'a self employed operative' he dealt with his own tax affairs and insurance.
There was no clause in the contract permitting Mr Smith to send someone else to do a job in his place. However in reality some plumbers did swop jobs at times. Pimlico Plumbers brought Mr Smith's arrangement to an end at which point he brought a claim against Pimlico Plumbers for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
The first hearing at the Employment Tribunal found that he was not allowed to claim unfair dismissal because he was not classed as an 'employee'. However he was allowed to claim disability discrimination because he was a 'worker'. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with this analysis as did the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to look at the entire arrangement that Pimlico Plumbers had with Mr Smith.
What is important about this case is the fact that this decision has been given by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, it is binding on other Courts and Tribunals and is a judgement, which will have to be followed by lower Courts as and when future cases are presented to them.
The Court of Appeal did not find that Mr Smith was an 'employee', which would have given him a full range of legal protection. However, being classed as a 'worker' he had a right to a minimum wage and to be paid leave along with rights such as being accompanied to any form of disciplinary meetings.
Once again the Courts have reminded us of ensuring that employers contracts are carefully drawn up, and in particular, that people who are in fact employed by organisations are not subject to sham self employment contracts.
If you want to discuss this or any other employment related matter contact us.