The dominant feature of Mr Smith's contract was that he should perform the work himself; he did not have an unfettered right to give away the work. Although Mr Smith had the ability to swap a shift with another Pimlico Plumber, this was a qualified right not set out in his written contract. Mr Smith was able to reject work and bore some financial risk, but this did not outweigh the factors pointing against Pimlico Plumbers being a client. The company controlled Mr Smith's uniform and his administrative duties, as well as when and how much payment he received. The relationship of subordination was a key indicator that Pimlico Plumbers was not a client of Mr Smith.
Accordingly, the employment tribunal was entitled to conclude that Mr Smith was a 'worker'.
The Supreme Court judgment adds very little to the existing caselaw on the meaning of 'worker'; the court focused on whether the tribunal was entitled - on the facts - to find that Mr Smith was a worker.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Bulletin for its coverage of this case.
Automatic enrolment impact According to Professional Pensions (PP), a spokesperson for The Pensions Regulator (TPR) said it would review the judgment and liaise with Pimlico Plumbers. TPR reportedly said: "We will study the Supreme Court's judgment and consider its implications. Employers have a duty to automatically enrol qualifying workers into a workplace pension scheme, and we carry out checks to ensure employers are giving their staff the pensions they are entitled to.
We will continue to liaise with Pimlico Plumbers for information about its workforce and pension arrangements so we can assess whether it is compliant with its automatic enrolment duties."
Back to Contents
Employee awarded £11,000 as maternity ‘pause clause’ was discriminatory 22 June 2018
The Employment Tribunal has awarded a claimant over £11,000 in compensation for loss of earnings and injury to feelings after finding that she had been subjected to discrimination.
Redmans Solicitors has summarized the case of Ms M Walworth v Scrivens Ltd as follows:
Ms Walworth worked for Scrivens Ltdl the company implemented a policy that if an employee left their employment within a particular period of time then they would have to repay a proportion of their training costs incurred. In August 2015 Ms Walworth informed Scrivens Ltd that she was pregnant and that she would go on maternity leave in April 2016. Human Resources wrote to Ms Walworth on 11 January 2016 to confirm that she was going on maternity leave and that the training repayment period under her training agreement would be ‘paused’ for her period of maternity leave. Whilst Ms Walworth was on maternity leave she informed Human Resources that she may not return to work from maternity leave; a letter was subsequently sent to Ms Walworth confirming that if she did leave her job then she would have to give twelve weeks’ notice of termination and that she would have to repay the entirety of her training costs. Ms Scrivens subsequently wrote to Scrivens Ltd to complain that she was submitting her notice of termination and that she believed that the effect of the ‘pause clause’ was discriminatory. Ms Walworth subsequently brought a claim for constructive dismissal and pregnancy maternity discrimination (among other claims). The Employment Tribunal upheld her claims for discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010) and constructive dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal’s purpose at this hearing was to consider what remedy Ms Walworth was entitled to. In the remedy judgment the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Walworth should be awarded the following compensation:
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 96 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker