Plumber Gary Smith has won his case for workers’ rights against Pimlico Plumbers, at the Supreme Court.
Ruling in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith [2018] UKSC 29, the Justices unanimously held that Smith, who worked for the company for six years, was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Consequently, he was entitled to rights such as holiday and sick pay.
Pimlico Plumbers had argued that Smith was self-employed as he was registered self-employed and paid VAT and income tax as a self-employed person.
Smith has alleged that an unlawful deduction had been made from his wages, he had not been paid for statutory annual leave and he had been discriminated against because of his disability. He can now proceed with his claim as a ‘worker’.
Employment lawyers welcomed the decision.
Matthew Smith, employment partner at Blake Morgan Solicitors, said the judgment is ‘undoubtedly the most significant decision of all the "gig economy" cases.
‘The case is now the leading authority on how to determine the employment status of those working in the gig economy. The case will have significant cost implications for organisations in a number of sectors where people have been treated as contractors rather than workers but the decision will be welcomed by many thousands of people who have been missing out on key employment rights because they are classed as self-employed when, in reality, they are workers or employees.’
Homa Wilson, employment partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: ‘This decision is in keeping with earlier cases on worker status and offers hope to those who are engaged on short-term contracts that the law offers them some protection.
‘Many had hoped that this decision would provide clarity on worker status. However, cases of worker status very much depend on the facts, and therefore will continue to be litigated as it’s not in the employer’s financial interest to concede without a fight.’
Tim Goodwin, associate at Winckworth Sherwood, said: ‘The basic rule of thumb in all these gig economy cases is the same: as a business, you cannot expect to exercise complete control over your staff whilst at the same time deny that they are workers, or even employees.
‘In this case, the individual had to wear a uniform, work a 40-hour week, was subject to disciplinary rules and was limited in who he could work for after he had left. This gave Pimlico Plumbers enormous control over his activities. But it also significantly undermined Pimlico Plumbers' key contention that he was self-employed.’
