JPP Law Blog
Plumber wins ‘worker’s rights’ claim against employer
A plumber who carried out jobs on behalf of a plumbing company should be classed as a "worker" under the Employment Rights Act, not a self-employed contractor.
That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in a high profile case involving Pimlico Plumbers and one of its operatives, Gary Smith.
Mr Smith carried out plumbing work for the company between August 2005 and April 2011. He complained that, following a heart attack, he was unfairly or wrongfully dismissed and claimed entitlement to pay during medical suspension, holiday pay and pay arrears.
The company said that the original contractual agreement between them, signed in 2005, described Mr Smith as a "sub-contracted employee". He was an independent contractor, he was VAT registered and filed his accounts as a self-employed person.
The court also heard that every operative was issued with a company identity card, which had to be carried when working. They also had to wear a uniform marked with the company's logo and were issued with a mobile phone.
Mr Smith worked only for Pimlico Plumbers. He could reject particular jobs, decide his own hours and work unsupervised, exercising his own discretion as to the work needed for a particular customer and whether to negotiate on price.
The contract provided for normal working hours consisting of five days a week in which he was required to complete a minimum of 40 hours. However, the company had no obligation to provide him with work on any particular day, and if there was no work for him he was not paid.
Mr Smith only worked on average about 20 hours each week in the last weeks of his relationship with the company. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Mr Smith was a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and entitled to the benefits that brought.
The Court of Appeal has upheld that decision. It held that evidence before the tribunal was clear and consistent that the relationship between Pimlico Plumbers and its operatives would only work if the operative was given and undertook a minimum number of hours' work.
Mr Smith like the other operatives, was required to use the van with the company logo on it for work assignments and was issued with a company mobile phone. He had to earn enough from work assignments to be able to pay the van and telephone expenses, and provide an income. His case was that it would have to be a minimum of 36 hours a week.
The case has attracted a lot of public attention because of the rise of the so called gig economy in which operatives are paid on a task by task basis rather than receive a regular weekly wage. However, the court warned against reading too much into this one decision.
Lord Justice Underhill said: "Although employment lawyers will inevitably be interested in this case - the question of when a relationship is genuinely casual being a very live one at present - they should be careful about trying to draw any very general conclusions from it."
The government is currently carrying out a review of workers' rights following similar high profile cases involving companies like Uber and City Sprint.
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: "We are determined to make sure our employment rules keep up to date to reflect new ways of working, and that is why the government asked Matthew Taylor to conduct an independent review into modern working practices."
Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article. To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law.
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)