Slashdot Mirror
A British Plumber May Show Uber the Future of Employment (bloomberg.com)
A British plumber may show Uber the future of employment. From a report: The U.K.'s top judges ruled Wednesday that Pimlico Plumbers Ltd. should've treated one of its tradesman as a "worker," giving him the right to vacation pay and to sue the company in a decision that could have ramifications for other gig economy lawsuits. Supreme Court judges found that plumber Gary Smith, who worked for London-based Pimlico Plumbers between August 2005 and April 2011, wasn't self-employed or a client of the firm, giving him the right to sue the company under discrimination laws.
"This is one of the most significant employment status decisions we have seen in the last five years," said James Murray, an employment lawyer at Kingsley Napley in London. Uber and other app-based firms will be watching the ruling with interest as they face similar legal challenges over the way they treat employees. Uber's appeal of a decision granting its drivers benefits including overtime and paid vacation is scheduled to be heard by another court October 30. Meanwhile Deliveroo, the food-delivery service, is currently battling the IWGB union over its riders' employment status and in May, taxi service Addison Lee lost an appeal over whether drivers were independent contractors or employees with rights to benefits.
"This is one of the most significant employment status decisions we have seen in the last five years," said James Murray, an employment lawyer at Kingsley Napley in London. Uber and other app-based firms will be watching the ruling with interest as they face similar legal challenges over the way they treat employees. Uber's appeal of a decision granting its drivers benefits including overtime and paid vacation is scheduled to be heard by another court October 30. Meanwhile Deliveroo, the food-delivery service, is currently battling the IWGB union over its riders' employment status and in May, taxi service Addison Lee lost an appeal over whether drivers were independent contractors or employees with rights to benefits.
Key facts in this case
- He had to work 5 days a week for a minimum of 40 hours
- He had to wear the company uniform and drive a company-logo van
- He couldn't send someone else to do the work (substitution) (although under limited circumstances a different pimlico employee could do work)
- There were significant limitations on his ability to work for other people or competitors
the courts basically looked at this and said; Yup - he looks an awful lot like an employee rather than an independent self-employed person.
More generally, the way the contract was written shows that Pimlico were trying to present to customers that the plumbers were employees, whilst making the plumbers not employees so that they could limit tax and avoid certain obligations. The UK courts are getting increasingly vociferous in saying that this is not ok.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases...
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Or...thank God for the guy that's prepared to stand up for what is right, despite the personal cost should they lose.
This isn't about contracting on its own (which is still 100% allowable), this is about using contracting as a scam to avoid paying the full costs of employing someone. I actually think this is more cut and dried than e.g.. Uber, because these guys supplied him with his tools, uniform, van, jobs and demanded a minimum number of hours worked - that's pretty much employment where I come from.