header-logo header-logo

PPE victory for gig economy workers

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll