Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:25 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 42938
Location: 1066 Country
Certain so called self-employment should come with 'working' benefits.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/51.html

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
weren't this plumbing company part of the EU thing?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1651
Everyone should read this judgement as it clearly affects the operator/private hire driver relationship and draw their own conclusions.

I would think some TAXI proprietors who rent vehicles out have to be very clear on the content of proprietor/driver relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2315
Here's a view of the case from Gordons Legal Services:
The Court of Appeal has this week upheld a decision that a plumber who was "self-employed" for tax purposes was actually a "worker" and therefore able to bring a number of claims in the Employment Tribunal.
In Pimlico Plumbers and another v Smith, the Claimant was a plumber who carried out work solely for the Respondent. He entered into an agreement with the Respondent that stated that he was a self-employed independent contractor. The agreement made between the parties had stipulations as to working hours; required him to wear a uniform; to use a van marked with the Respondent’s logo (which was rented from the Respondent); and provided that he could only swap jobs with other plumbers who provided services to the Respondent. The Claimant also filed his own tax returns and was registered for VAT.
The Claimant had a heart attack and was subsequently dismissed from the Respondent. He brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. At a Preliminary Hearing, the Employment Tribunal determined that the Claimant was a "worker" and therefore could continue with his claims for holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages, and that he was “in employment” under the extended definition set out in the Equality Act. The Respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
The Respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal, who also upheld the Employment Tribunal's original finding. The Master of the Rolls, who gave the leading judgment observed that;
"...the case puts a spotlight on a business model under which operatives are intended to appear to clients of the business as working for the business, but at the same time the business itself seeks to maintain that, as between itself and its operatives, there is a legal relationship of client or customer and independent contractor rather than employer and employee or worker."
Comment: Whilst it is important to note that these cases all very much turn on their own particular facts, this is the third recent high-profile decision which has found that so-called “self-employed” contractors are, in fact, workers. These decisions are likely to have huge implications for many businesses who operate under such a model, particularly in the so-called “gig-economy". It is likely that there will be further decisions in the coming months along similar lines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2315
Here's the Court of appeal update on this case, copied from an email from Gordon's Legal employment solicitors:

In the case of Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Another v Smith, the Court of Appeal dismissed Pimlico’s challenge and determined that it could find no flaw in the Employment Tribunal’s decision that Smith’s relationship with the Company was that of a worker. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal summarised the principles that apply when deciding whether or not the ‘personal performance’ requirement has been met:
An unfettered right to substitute another person to do the work or perform the services is inconsistent with an undertaking to do so personally.
A conditional right to substitute another person may or may not be inconsistent with personal performance depending upon the conditionality. It will depend on the precise contractual arrangements and, in particular, the nature and degree of any fetter on a right of substitution or, using different language, the extent to which the right of substitution is limited or occasional.
By way of example, a right of substitution only when the contractor is unable to carry out the work will, subject to any exceptional facts, be consistent with personal performance.
By way of example, a right of substitution limited only by the need to show that the substitute is as qualified as the contractor to do the work, whether or not that entails a particular procedure, will, subject to any exceptional facts, be inconsistent with personal performance.
By way of example, a right to substitute only with the consent of another person who has an absolute and unqualified discretion to withhold consent will be consistent with personal performance.
Although there was evidence that plumbers could sometimes swap jobs, Smith has no right to substitute another operative to carry out his work and was contractually obliged to work for a minimum number of hours each week.
Comment: The Court of Appeal is binding authority and therefore this will serve as a key authority for future cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Posts: 6666
heathcote wrote:
Everyone should read this judgement as it clearly affects the operator/private hire driver relationship and draw their own conclusions.

I would think some TAXI proprietors who rent vehicles out have to be very clear on the content of proprietor/driver relationship.


Read it Heathcote you gormo WORKER WORKER WORKER WORKER as in "Worker under the Direction of the Company"

Something i have been preaching on here for at least 8 years #-o #-o #-o

They are not employed their WORKERS entitled to many rights Holiday Pay, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and much more =D> =D>

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity and as such should not be associated with any organisation whatsoever!

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.uK

VOTE CORBYN!!

JOIN A UNION


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group