Employment Status
The past year has seen numerous claims from individuals seeking to prove their employment rights, the most prolific of which have been cases within the ‘Gig Economy’ which have been highlighted during previous newsletters.
Employment status is sure to remain a key issue before the Courts and the Employment Tribunals during 2018.
Uber has recently seen their application for its claim to go straight to the Supreme Court refused following last month’s Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissal of the cab-hailing company’s appeal in the case of Uber v Aslam.
During that Employment Appeal Tribunal case, it was confirmed that Uber drivers should be regarded as “workers” and should, therefore, claim basic workers’ rights such as sickness and holiday pay.
Uber then applied for permission to go direct to the Supreme Court. However, this type of exception is granted only in a small minority of cases and the application was refused.
Uber’s appeal will instead be heard by the Court of Appeal sometime during 2018.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court will hear another employment status case in 2018 namely when Pimlico Plumbers appeal against the decision that one of its plumbers who had signed a self-employed consultancy agreement was, in fact, a “worker”.
This case is significant because it will be noted the fact that the highest court within the United Kingdom will be making a decision on employment status, i.e. is the Claimant a “worker” or simply self-employed without those rights attaching to worker status?
The outcome will be watched with interest by anybody associated with the Gig Economy and commentators alike.
We are also currently awaiting a response to the Matthew Taylor report on modern working practices and many employers will be waiting to see if the recommendations on clarifying employment status will be actioned during 2018.
Next year should see – a result of these impending decisions – clarification on the legal status of gig economy workers.
This will clearly have a significant impact on the economy as a whole and could lead to a flood of claims through the Tribunals.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are for information purposes only and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Specific legal advice should be sort tailored to the individual circumstances in all cases.
