10.02.17 Pimlico plumbers fails at the Court of Appeal

The employment status question in relation to a plumber who was engaged as a self-employed operative has reached the Court of Appeal with CEO of Pimlico Plumbers, Charlie Mullins’ unsuccessful attempt to get an Employment Tribunal decision from 2012 overturned.

A case held at the Employment Tribunal in April 2012 found that the claimant, Gary Smith, who engaged with Pimlico as a self-employed contractor, was a worker under the definition provided by section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and by regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Employment Rights Act, section 230(3);

(3)           In this Act “worker” (except in the phrases “shop worker” and “betting worker”) means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under)—

(a)           a contract of employment, or

(b)           any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual;

and any reference to a worker’s contract shall be construed accordingly.

Following a case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in November 2014, the decision made at the ET was upheld.

This latest hearing at the Court of Appeal was brought by Mr Mullins and Pimlico Plumbers Limited on the grounds that the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision erred in its consideration of the case.  The appeal was subsequently dismissed, holding that the original appeal had considered the facts correctly.

The original decision that Mr. Smith was in fact a worker and was entitled to basic employment rights stands.  That decision was based on the full circumstances surrounding his engagement and specifically on the fact that his contract clearly demonstrated the expectation that he would provide his services personally.  Added to this there was no evidence that he had an unfettered right to provide a substitute to provide the services  

Read the Court of Appeal case, here.