Ruling on June 13, 2018
Authority: United Kingdom Supreme Court
Parties: Pimlico Plumbers Ltd / Smith
Subject: Right of protection against dismissal, reimbursement wage deductions, paid leave and invocation of equality provisions.
Summary of facts: Smith worked for Pimlico Plumbers as a plumber and heating engineer. He is bringing proceedings against Pimlico Plumbers claiming that he was unfairly dismissed, that an unauthorised deduction was made from his salary, that he was not paid for a period of statutory annual leave and that he was discriminated because of his "disability". The Employment Tribunal ruled that there was no contract of employment between Smith and Pimlico Plumbers, which meant that he was not entitled to protection against dismissal. The Employment Tribunal further considers that Smith does qualify as a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act and the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that he had been 'employed' for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. Mr Smith was thus right to continue with his last three complaints (repayment of unauthorised deductions from wages, payment of statutory annual leave and employment discrimination). On appeal, Smith was vindicated in respect of these three complaints. Pimlico Plumbers appealed against this judgment again, arguing that Smith does not qualify as a 'worker' now that he can be freely replaced.
Legal question: Does Mr Smith qualify as a 'worker' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act and the Working Time Regulations and was he 'employed' by Pimblico Plumbers within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010?
Considerations: The contract stated that Mr Smith was entitled to be replaced if he was replaced by another Pimlico contractor. According to the Supreme Court this limitation of the replacement was significant: the replacement had to be one of the Pimlico contracts, and thus a person bound to Pimlico by an identical set of heavy obligations. It must therefore be concluded that this is not a case of 'free replacement', but of an obligation to perform on a personal basis. It is further considered that Pimlico cannot be designated as Smith's customer.
Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that Smith qualified as a 'worker' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act, Working Time Regulation and Equality Act 2010.