header-logo header-logo

18 November 2020
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

PPE victory for gig economy workers

The government has not done enough to protect gig economy and precarious workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has held in a landmark judgment

The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which brought the judicial review, said one in ten adults who work have gig economy jobs, which accounts for about 4.7 million people.

Ruling in R (IWGB) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2020] EWHC 3050 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain found the UK has failed to grant workers in the gig economy the rights they are entitled to under EU Health and Safety law. This includes the right to be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by the business they are working for, and the right to stop work in response to serious and imminent danger.

According to Old Square Chambers, these protections have only been extended to employees, ‘whereas the court found that their scope is wide enough to also include workers, as defined in s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, often called “limb b workers”’. Old Square’s Ijeoma Omambala QC and Cyril Adjei acted for the IWGB.

In his judgment, Chamberlain J said: ‘This gap in protection has existed ever since the deadline for transposing the Directives, 31 December 1992, but the claimant contends that the COVID-19 pandemic gives it a particular salience and significance.

‘The workers whom the claimant represents include taxi and private hire drivers and chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers, and van drivers. All these occupations have higher than average rates of death from COVID-19 and, the claimant submits, particular needs for the kinds of health and safety measures the Directives require.’

He held the government has ‘failed properly to implement Art 8(4) and (5) of the Framework Directive and Art 3 of the PPE Directive with respect to limb (b) workers’.

 

Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll