Primary legislation clearly defining the boundary between self-employed and ‘worker’ status is required to protect Uber drivers, Deliveroo cyclists and other workers in the ‘gig economy’, The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices has concluded.
The status of ‘worker’ entitles the individual to basic statutory protections such as the national minimum wage. Matthew Taylor’s review notes that ‘we have to re-examine whether the legislation meets the needs of a modern labour market’. One ‘manifestation’ of the changing world of work, it notes, was last year’s tribunal ruling that Uber drivers are ‘workers’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996 definition (see
Taylor said the review team had received many submissions from business groups calling for greater legislative clarity, and expressing concern that less scrupulous businesses might try to undercut them. Understanding how the law might apply, without an encyclopaedic knowledge of caselaw, was ‘almost impossible’. Consequently, he said, ‘the legislation must do more and the courts less’.
The Taylor review recommends retaining the current three categories of ‘worker’, ‘employee’ and ‘self-employed’, but renaming as ‘dependent contractors’ those who are eligible for worker rights but are not employees. It recommends that ‘dependent contractors’ be clearly defined to reflect the reality of modern work, and the element of control be given greater importance to the definition.
It recommends that tax and employment tribunal jurisdictions be aligned so that a finding that an individual is an employee for tax purposes would be binding for employment purposes. The review also notes that tribunal fees can make it difficult for employees to access their rights.
Employment lawyer Alex Bearman, partner at Russell Cooke, said: ‘Recent cases have shown that tribunals are prepared to recognise that those engaged in the gig economy are entitled to the national minimum wage within the current legal framework.
‘If a new category of worker is now created for Uber drivers, and others employed in similar set ups, which provides more limited national minimum wage rights, this will probably be seen as a step backwards by some. Others however will take the view that this is an inevitable price which has to be paid for the flexibility which these working practices offer.’
